Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

The Corrosion of Ethics in Higher Education

In its 1966 declaration on professional ethics, the American Association of University Professors, the professoriate’s representation organization, states:

“Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them....They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline.… They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from (their students).”

Notwithstanding such pronouncements, higher education recently has provided the public with a series of ethical solecisms, most spectacularly the University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill’s recidivistic plagiarism and duplicitous claim of Native American ancestry along with his denunciations of 9/11 victims. While plagiarism and fraud presumably remain exceptional, accusations and complaints of such wrong doing increasingly come to light.

Some examples include Demas v. Levitsky at Cornell, where a doctoral student filed a legal complaint against her adviser’s failure to acknowledge her contribution to a grant proposal; Professor C. William Kauffman’s complaint against the University of Michigan for submitting a grant proposal without acknowledging his authorship; and charges of plagiarism against by Louis W. Roberts, the now-retired classics chair at the State University of New York at Albany. Additional plagiarism complaints have been made against Eugene M. Tobin, former president of Hamilton College, and Richard L. Judd, former president of Central Connecticut State University.

In his book Academic Ethics, Neil Hamilton observes that most doctoral programs fail to educate students about academic ethics so that knowledge of it is eroding. Lack of emphasis on ethics in graduate programs leads to skepticism about the necessity of learning about ethics and about how to teach it. Moreover, nihilist philosophies that have gained currency within the academy itself such as Stanley Fish’s “antifoundationalism” contribute to the neglect of ethics education.
.
For these reasons academics generally do not seriously consider how ethics education might be creatively revived. In reaction to the Enron corporate scandal, for instance, some business schools have tacked an ethics course onto an otherwise ethically vacuous M.B.A. program. While a step in the right direction, a single course in a program otherwise uninformed by ethics will do little to change the program’s culture, and may even engender cynicism among students.

Similarly, until recently, ethics education had been lacking throughout the American educational system. In response, ethicists such as Kevin Ryan and Karen Bohlin have advocated a radical renewal of ethics education in elementary schools. They claim that comprehensive ethics education can improve ethical standards. In Building Character in Schools, Ryan and Bohlin compare an elementary school to a polis, or Greek city state, and urge that ethics be fostered everywhere in the educational polis.

Teachers, they say, need to set standards and serve as ethical models for young students in a variety of ways and throughout the school. They find that manipulation and cheating tend to increase where academic achievement is prized but broader ethical values are not. They maintain that many aspects of school life, from the student cafeteria to the faculty lounge, ought to provide opportunities, among other things, to demonstrate concern for others. They also propose the use of vision statements that identify core virtues along with the implementation of this vision through appropriate involvement by staff and students.

We would argue that, like elementary schools, universities have an obligation to ethically nurture undergraduate and graduate students. Although the earliest years of life are most important for the formation of ethical habits, universities can influence ethics as well. Like the Greek polis, universities become ethical when they become communities of virtue that foster and demonstrate ethical excellence. Lack of commitment to teaching, lack of concern for student outcomes, false advertising about job opportunities open to graduates, and diploma-mill teaching practices are examples of institutional practices that corrode rather than nourish ethics on campuses.

Competency-based education, broadly considered, is increasingly of interest in business schools. Under the competency-based approach (advocated, for example, by Rick Boyatzis of Case Western Reserve University, David Whetten of Brigham Young University, and Kim Cameron of the University of Michigan), students are exposed not only to theoretical concepts, but also to specific competencies that apply the theory. They are expected to learn how to apply in their lives the competencies learned in the classroom, for instance those relating to communication and motivating others. Important ethical competencies (or virtues) should be included and fostered alongside such competencies. Indeed, in applied programs such as business, each discipline and subject can readily be linked to ethical virtues. Any applied field, from traffic engineering to finance, can and should include ethical competencies as an integral part of each course.

For example, one of us currently teaches a course on managerial skills, one portion of which focuses on stress management. The stress management portion includes a discussion of personal mission setting, which is interpreted as a form of stress management. The lecture emphasizes how ethics can intersect with practical, real world decision making and how it can relate to competencies such as achievement orientation. In the context of this discussion, which is based on a perspective that originated with Aristotle, a tape is shown of Warren Buffett suggesting to M.B.A. students at the University of North Carolina that virtue is the most important element of personal success.

When giving this lecture, we have found that street smart undergraduate business students at Brooklyn College and graduates in the evening Langone program of the Stern School of Business of New York University respond well to Buffett’s testimony, perhaps better than they would to Aristotle’s timeless discussions in Nicomachean Ethics.

Many academics will probably resist integration of ethical competencies into their course curriculums, and in recent years it has become fashionable to blame economists for such resistance. For example, in his book Moral Dimension, Amitai Etzioni equates the neoclassical economic paradigm with disregard for ethics. Sumantra Ghoshal’s article “Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices,” in Academy of Management Learning and Education Journal, blames ethical decay on the compensation and management practices that evolved from economic theory’s emphasis on incentives.

We disagree that economics has been all that influential. Instead, the problem is much more fundamental to the humanities and social sciences and has its root in philosophy. True, economics can exhibit nihilism. For example, the efficient markets hypothesis, that has influenced finance, holds that human knowledge is impotent in the face of efficient markets. This would imply that moral choice is impotent because all choice is so. But the efficient markets hypothesis is itself a reflection of a deeper and broader philosophical positivism that is now pandemic to the entire academy.

Over the past two centuries the assaults on the rational basis for morals have created an atmosphere that stymies interest in ethical education. In the 18th century, the philosopher David Hume wrote that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is,” so that morals are emotional and cannot be proven true. Today’s academic luminaries have thoroughly imbibed this “emotivist” perspective. For example, Stanley Fish holds that even though academics do exhibit morality by condemning “cheating, academic fraud and plagiarism,” there is no universal morality beyond this kind of “local practice.”

Whatever its outcome, the debate over the rational derivability of ethical laws from a set of clear and certain axioms that hold universally is of little significance in and of itself. It will not determine whether ethics is more or less important in our lives; nor will it provide a disproof of relativism — since defenders of relativism can still choose not to accept the validity of the derivation.

Yet ethics must still be lived — even though the knowledge, competency, skill or talent that is needed to lead a moral life, a life of virtue, may not be derived from any clear and certain axioms. There is no need for derivation of the need, for instance, for good interpersonal skills. Rather, civilization depends on competency, skill and talent as much as it depends on practical ethics. Ethical virtue does not require, nor is it sustained by, logical derivation; it becomes most manifest, perhaps, through its absence, as revealed in the anomie and social decline that ensue from its abandonment. Philosophy is beside the point.

Based on much evidence of such a breakdown, ethics education experts such as Thomas Lickona of the SUNY’s College at Cortland have concluded that to learn to act ethically, human beings need to be exposed to living models of ethical emotion, intention and habit. Far removed from such living models, college students today are incessantly exposed to varying degrees of nihilism: anti-ethical or disembodied, hyper-rational positions that Professor Fish calls “poststructuralist” and “antifoundationalist.” In contrast, there is scant emphasis in universities on ethical virtue as a pre-requisite for participation in a civilized world. Academics tend to ignore this ethical pre-requisite, preferring to pretend that doing so has no social repercussions.

They are disingenuous – and wrong.

It is at the least counterintuitive to deny that the growing influence of nihilism within the academy is deeply, and causally, connected to increasing ethical breaches by academics (such as the cases of plagiarism and fraud that we cited earlier). Abstract theorizing about ethics has most assuredly affected academics’ professional behavior.

The academy’s influence on behavior extends, of course, far beyond its walls, for students carry the habits they have learned into society at large. The Enron scandal, for instance, had more roots in the academy than many academics have realized or would care to acknowledge. Kenneth Lay, Enron’s former chairman, holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Houston.Jeff Skilling, Enron’s former CEO, is a Harvard M.B.A. who had been a partner at the McKinsey consulting firm, one of the chief employers of top-tier M.B.A. graduates. According to Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker, Enron had followed McKinsey’s lead, habitually hiring the brightest M.B.A. graduates from leading business schools, most often from the Wharton School. Compared to most other firms, it had more aggressively placed these graduates in important decision-making posts. Thus, the crimes committed at Enron cannot be divorced from decision-making by the best and brightest of the newly minted M.B.A. graduates of the 1990s.

As we have seen, the 1966 AAUP statement implies the crucial importance of an ethical foundation to academic life. Yet ethics no longer occupies a central place in campus life, and universities are not always run ethically. With news of academic misdeeds (not to mention more spectacular academic scandals, such as the Churchill affair) continuing to unfold, the public rightly grows distrustful of universities.

It is time for the academy to heed the AAUP’s 1915 declaration, which warned that if the professoriate “should prove itself unwilling to purge its ranks of … the unworthy… it is certain that the task will be performed by others.”

Must universities learn the practical value of ethical virtue by having it imposed from without? Or is ethical revival possible from within?

Candace de Russy is a trustee of the State University of New York and a Hudson Institute Adjunct Fellow. Mitchell Langbert is associate professor of business at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York.

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

This article misses the whole point.

Yet another article about students not learning what they should, after administrators bow to politicians and businessmen and change education into job training. Most of these types of complaints come down to a complaint that, having taken philosophy out of the requirements for higher education degrees, students aren’t learning philosophy. Well, duh! We will continue to see such complaints as long as administrators allow the liberal arts to be divorced from most degree programs.

If we want students to learn ethics, then we need to require them to take an ethics course. If we want students to learn to think critically, then we need to require them to take a critical thinking course. But really, those complainers don’t want students to learn ethics or critical thinking—what they want is to *appear* to want students to learn these things. Making students learn such things would divert higher education from its function as job training. Academic Capitalism at its worst.

Leslie C. Miller, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Mesa State College, at 3:02 pm EDT on July 5, 2005

Response to Leslie Miller’s Comment

Dr. Miller: I think that Candace’s and my point is not that philosophy should not be taught; of course it should. Rather, our concern is that given the ethical state of academia, to include the name calling and inability to debate virtuously that characterizes the post modern university, the institutions and the academics themselves cannot provide a believable context in which practical ethics can be taught. Slogans like “academic capitalism” merely confirm our argument.

Mitchell Langbert, Associate Professor at Brooklyn College, at 3:47 pm EDT on July 5, 2005

Lead us not into temptation

This article shows how easily ethics can be conflated with values, virtues, even “universal morals.” This line of argument could be used as a stalking horse to open the barn door to an LA freeway of religious and political corruption of Academia. It would be quite sufficient to just teach Academic ethics. We can go back to Plato’s standards like the idea of the good to understand and clarify ethics, so I also do not see how philosophy is to blame when it has been in retreat. Ethics are needed to be taught explicitly in proportion to temptations latent in opportunities, thus the infractions often occurring in relation to money, sexual harrassment, academic dishonesty for career advancement and so forth. But these cases are relatively few for such a huge cohort as American higher education faculty and adjuncts. All that is needed is for educators to set an example, learn and teach about academic ethics.

Japanned, Professor at Osaka Jogakuin College, Japan, at 8:25 pm EDT on July 5, 2005

Ethics in the University

The authors are to be congratulated for calling attention in such a profound and thoughtful way, to the lack of serious attention afforded ethics on American campuses these days. They are right. Of course, we should hardly be surprised by this: if there be no objective truth, if language—as our Deconstruction Workers have convinced publishers & thus promotion committees—lacks fixed meaning, then good and bad, right and wrong are relative. ‘Ethics’ is a meaningless term, unless there exists an objective ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. The reflexive loathing of anything suggesting capitalism or private ownership feeds this amorality: faculty who don’t value private ownership just aren’t apt to get all het up plagiarism. The Napster generation is the perfect product of late 20th-century university education: parasitic, piratical, self-indulgent. (This is not to say all students are like this—thankfully, far from it, because students’ parents tend to be more committed to inculcating virtue in the young than are university faculty members—but what the university, like a bad parent, would produce, left to its own devices.) One anecdote, and then back to my real-world job, in talk radio. About 15 years ago, as an idealistic young English professor, I recognized this problem—that students learned next to nothing about ethics, that they entered the workforce in near total ignorance of the ethical problems they were likely to face in their chosen careers. So in my basic composition classes, I threw away the tedious, politically correct reader, and told them instead of writing artificial answers to packaged ideas, they’d write about ethics in the Real World. I brought in speakers to represent every profession I could think of, asking each to discuss about the kind of ethical dilemmas he/she faced in his/her profession. I got the mayor of the small city I taught in to come—and a librarian, a chief of surgery from a prominent hospital, my accountant (a hit!), a univ. dean, a journalist, etc. I bought with my own money some videotapes, and showed short segments of these to supplement these talks. Almost all the writing assignments derived from the talks and tapes. For their major paper, students had to identify three or four ethical dilemmas they might face in the profession they were going to enter, and how they’d go about solving them. This was immensely successful. Other, senior professors borrowed and followed or adapted my syllabus. I continued employing this approach for several years. And then, one summer, when I was out of town, a colleague borrowed my tapes. When I returned and asked her where they were, she told me she no longer had them. My ethics tapes had been stolen from her office, she explained. Without missing a beat, she asked what other tapes I might own that she could use to liven up her classes. I told her I had none, but I had an anecdote she could use, the next time she wanted to teach ‘irony.’

Dr. Laurie Morrow, Recovering Academic, and Talk Radio Show Host TRUE NORTH Radio, WDEV AM & FM and WSYB AM Vermont)

Laurie Morrow, Dr., at 4:32 am EDT on July 6, 2005

The real problem is that University of Colorado administrators promoted him and advanced his career, in spite of the long standing issues of fraud, plagiarism, and intimidation of colleagues.

These politicized Administrators have proven to be more interested in their own career advancement, by caving in to progressive” and “pro-Affirmative Action” pressures, than executing their responsibility, and obligation, to provide credible and trustworthy academic environments, thus earning the stawardship of the young minds with which they are entrusted.

When the Churchill investigation is completed, I will be lobbying for an investigation into the administrators who, by their historical support and advancement of Churchill and others like him, have brought this mess to the rediculous levels it has attained.

As a “regular guy", when it comes to bad jokes like Churchill, I don’t care much about the philosophical questions of academic freedom, and where the “line” is between what constitutes legitimate inellectual debate of difficult issues, and what is threatening incitement to violence. All I know is that a state university is employing and promoting someone who calls for the justified death of technocrats, that is, me, and my friends and family. As far as I’m concerned, they can cut out the dead wood, or rot along with it.

John W Docker

P.S. As for comments about Universities being reduced to glorified vocational schools, what a load of leftist crap. I suppose, rather than preparing students for the real world of competition and acheivement, some would rather seen Universities engage in strictly hypothetical philosophy, where opinions are as good as facts, and any piece of garbage ideal is equivalent to every other. Churchill spewed this same line at his speech at the Salida (CO) Steam Plant Theater in June (YAWN!).

John W Docker, Member of Untenured Masses at School of Hard Knocks, at 5:21 pm EDT on July 6, 2005

Ridiculous article...

I was all geared up to read an article about ethics in higher education and then find I’m reading a screed about Ward Churchill’s politics. Do what now?

So, I scroll to the bottom of the page and what do I see? Hudson Institute. Hilarious.

How did Higher Ed get duped into publishing a political opinion piece posing as an article on ethics? Better, how did the authors of an ‘ethics’ piece manage to circumvent them during the writing of this very piece?

Thanks y’all. I needed a good chuckle before bed.

Peter, at 5:44 am EDT on July 8, 2005

Confusing conclusions

Interesting and important points in a well-written article. If only most philosophical essays were written with this kind of plainness.

Yet I’m very concerned about both the problems raised by this article — and of the assessments of their causes. For the moment I’ll just talk about the latter.

Strains of this article seem to either conjunct or conflate nihilism with abstract theorizing. If so, that would be technically wrong, rhetorically suspect, and counterproductive.

If you have an ethical theory, then you are probably not a nihilist. That’s just the nature of the beast.

The Aristotelian character-bound, role-model oriented approach to ethics is great, as was indicated in this article. And such approaches are often placed in contrast to more modern, theory-centered approaches. However, this standoff is more rhetorical than anything — a character-oriented approach is compatible with a rules-oriented approach. Given that, I do not see how the “abstract theorizing” bogeyman is related to nihilism, which this article seems to concern itself with. The connection, if there is any, has not been made clear to me.

It also seems rhetorically suspect to blame “philosophical positivism” as a culprit of ethical decay. The philosophical insistence upon scientific rigor, coupled with a taste for lawlike ideas, has nothing to say about ethics in the main.

Finally, whatever its merits, the connection intimated between nihilism and these other philosophical trends would be counterproductive, since logic (and its theoretical “derivations"), at a bare minimum, helps to fulfill the ethical (and hence, virtuous) prerequisite of “non-arbitrariness". This trait of non-arbitrariness can be found across all sensible ethical theories, including Christianity’s golden rule, the Kantian categorical imperative, and utilitarianism (which I favor). Unless the authors think those theories “insignificant” or “besides the point", the lightest tinge of logic cannot be escaped; nor should it. On the other hand, if they adopt the view that all theory ought to be replaced with an Aristotelian outlook, I’ll disagree strenuously, and think it immoral; but still, the first two points remain.

But perhaps I’ve misread. If so, I anticipate the correction.

As an aside, I’d like to see some sources on the allegations against Churchill. I’m familiar with his essay about 9/11, but these other claims about his credibility are new to me (alas).

Ben Nelson, University of Western Ontario, at 5:17 pm EDT on July 17, 2005

Response to Ben Nelson

I wanted to thank Laurie Nelson, John W. Docker and Ben Nelson for their thoughtful comments on Candace de Russy’s and my essay.

Responding to Professor Nelson, our point is sociological rather than philosophical. What has tended to happen in the business classes that I teach is that the students feel most comfortable couching ethics problems in skeptical terms because “they do it differently in China so there’s no right answer.” Candace and I are saying that ethics is important even if there is no defense of ethics(or if the skeptical, utilitarian, deontological, MacIntyrian or some other argument turns out to be most robust) because there are behavioral imperatives that are important even in the absence of philosophical justification. You can call me an ethical empiricist who is arguing that one justification (not the only one and one independent of the philosphical justification) for ethics is empirical in nature. I think I am very close to Aristotle in that regard because for him practical wisdom is ultimately judged by its effectiveness, but we are not arguing against the utilitarian or any other logical defense of ethics (nor are we saying that ethics is independent of logic). Rather, we are saying that just as I can prove to you that good manners lead to flourishing in the practical world, so I can prove to you that ethics leads to flourishing, despite the occasional counter-example, and so it is important to understand practical ethical conventions and how they work regardless of their philospohical defense or justification. Undoubtedly the work of philosphers (which I am not, by the way) is critical and important and needs to be expanded. What I personally have observed is more of a teaching issue, that students often conclude from the perspective that “ethics are relative” or more nihilistic perspectives that “ethics aren’t important” or that “anything goes” because “I’m too smart to believe in right or wrong". That may not be anyone’s intention to communicate (although perhaps I am being too polite), but I do believe that it has ramifications beyond the classroom and that there have been behavioral implications in academia as well as in the business world. The behavioral implications of ideas is not really a philosophical concern but I think it is a serious by product of the philosophical perspectives that have gained currency in the academy, and that the tone of debate not to mention how personnel issues are handled is colored by nihilism.

Mitchell Langbert, Associate Professor at Brooklyn College, at 9:46 pm EDT on July 19, 2005

Yes, nihilism is the cause of corruption in academia.

Nihilism is basically the absence of self-respect as we knew it in civilized society. Character, they say, doesn’t matter. Nothing matters when at stake are political ideas of the Left. Nothing is anymore judged on its own merits, but the society (now — it’s the marihuana generation) only looks for political implications. The example is on my web site — http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/

Michael Pyshnov.

Michael Pyshnov, at 10:44 am EDT on August 2, 2005

Reply to Prof. Mitchell

I just wanted to clarify, first, that though I like the sound of “Professor Nelson", and would be happy if it were my title, I’m not (yet) a professor, just a student. Second, Laurie’s last name is Morrow, not Nelson.

It seems we agree that ethics is absolutely demanded in all walks of life, so certainly it should be taught. That means that philosophy (especially ethical philosophy) must be taken seriously across all disciplines of academia, including (as your example) business.

Regarding “ethical empiricism” as you describe it: it is true that a large part of sociology can be understood as “descriptive ethics". (For what it’s worth, I would take that sentiment one step further, and assert that all the human / social sciences are just there to serve ethics, and not just the reverse.) Some persons, the “consequentialists", think the good and badness of a situation (and corresponding right and wrongness) can be understood to derive from the actual / perceived consequences an act will have. That’s much like the Aristotelian perspective that you mention. Similarily, hedonistic consequentialists would look at the consequences upon happiness and misery. So, for sure, much of the legwork is largely empirical, for such persons.

The trouble is threefold. First, your students are in large part onto something. Ethical relativity must be addressed as a serious objection to ethics, or at least be accounted for when teaching as an empiricist. For instance, even good manners can be questioned as subjectively relative — I would assert that some manners are ethically and/or practically dysfunctional (No elbows on the table when eating, no soup-slurping, etc). Second, the most that an ethical empiricist could do (if I understand you correctly) is say, “The group of people so-and-so believe in the goodness / badness of such-and-such". And while this is perfectly fine as a tactic for teaching ethics empirically, it doesn’t help respond to the first objection at all. Third, the deontologists are scandalized by any assertions of the kind that you’ve made. To follow the ethical empiricist’s programme, you would have to either assume or argue that they are a mistaken bunch.

For these reasons, I don’t think you can respond to relativism or defend the teaching of ethics without making a meta-ethical stand, which would allow you to justify ethics empirically. So some minimal introduction to justifications of ethical systems seems appropriate.

I agree that there are ways to justify ethics empirically, and agree along the lines of the ideas you presented. But the biggest concern for me is, you can’t pretend to be a scientist when making this justification. You’ve got to fess up that you’re wearing the philosopher hat, even if for just the briefest of moments.

But hey, all science is empirical natural philosophy, anyway. So the admission of being momentarily philosophical shouldn’t reasonably upset anyone’s sense of professionalism as a scientist.

Ben Nelson, University of Western Ontario, at 4:37 pm EDT on August 5, 2005

Call for More Ethics Classes

I am assuming that in you are planning a followup piece on academic ethics, in which you provide some (any?) empirical evidence that there is a connection between the taking of an ethics class and ethical behavior. You make a number of assertions about this causal relationship, and I suspect that it was just oversight on your part that you ommitted your data.

Note: Hints at this relationship won’t make the case. E.g., arguments of the form

Enron execs graduated from top MBA schoolsTop MBA schools aren’t teaching ethics classes

Therefore, Enron-ish events can be avoided by teaching ethics classes

I suspect that every graduate student who first teaches an ethics class harbors a secret belief that doing so will make the world a nicer place. Such sentiments also bolster a tenure or grant application. But the students who cut you off as you’re trying to exit the parking lot on campus are usually the same ones who took your ethics class (or someone else’s). The Churchill’s of the world know what plagiarism is, and they know it’s wrong. If there’s evidence that having them sit through a series of contrived “What would YOU do???” scenarios and furnishing them with the latest spin on Greek Virtues, would improve their behavior, you might provide it.

Manuel D’Espana, Dr. at New Mexico State, at 9:03 am EDT on October 16, 2005

Response to Manuel D’Espana

Prof. D’Espana. I think that you’re right. The problem is that little in higher education has been validated. Coincidentally, Candace and I have been advocating this idea for SUNY and CUNY. I refer you to, for example, the recent exchange of letters between Candace and one of the associate chancellors of CUNY in a recent issue of the NY Sun. Unfortunately, the validation of education about managerial skills requires a budget and institutional support.....

Mitchell Langbert, Associate Professor at Brooklyn College, at 10:47 pm EST on December 25, 2005

Response to Ben Nelson

While your point about the importance of responding to philosophical arguments is well taken and undoubtedly of philosophical importance, I disagree that it is useful to over-emphasize philosophical debates about the foundations of ethics in business classes, any more than it would be useful to emphasize Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica in introductory arithmetic classes. Whether or not there are logical foundations to ethics is unimportant, and good ethical principles can be taught just as good arithmetical principles can be taught without foundational arguments. While it may be true that not all cultures share ethics or manners that are identical, there is surprisingly little variability around the civilized world. But the critical point is that to function effectively in the real, historical world an understanding of ethical practice is needed. Surely point for point this will be limited to a restricted group (a people cut off from western civilization may have somewhat different ethics), however, that restricted group is the one that matters to students. Is it solace to Jeff Skilling that his ethical boorishness may have been shared by a group of professors in an ivory tower cut off from real world practice?

>Ethical relativity must be addressed as a serious objection to ethics, or at least be accounted for when teaching as an empiricist. For instance, even good manners can be questioned as subjectively relative

Mitchell Langbert, Associate Professor, at 10:47 pm EST on December 25, 2005

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to The Corrosion of Ethics in Higher Education

or search for jobs directly.

Foster and Adoptive Parent Team Member (PL)
Eastern Kentucky University

Eastern Kentucky University, located in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky near the Heart of the Bluegrass, is a ... see job

Assistant Professor (North Memorial Health Care Residency Program)
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Instructor, Mathematics
College of Lake County

The College of Lake County is searching for a Instructor, Mathematics. see job

Visual and Performing Arts, Assistant Professor
Florida Gulf Coast University

FGCU, a member of the State University System of Florida, is a comprehensive university created to address the educational ... see job

Assistant/Associate/Professor, Piano and Collaborative Performance, Coordinator of Keyboard Program
DePaul University

DePaul University School of Music NOTICE OF FACULTY VACANCY Position: Instructor in Piano and Collaborative Performance, ... see job

Adjunct Instructor, Computer Information Technology-Operating Systems
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Lecturer
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Radiologic Technology Program Director
Concorde Career Colleges, Inc.

Concorde Career Colleges, Inc. is a nationally recognized for-profit, post-secondary education company providing career ... see job

Fundamentals of Academic Reading Adjunct Faculty Pool
Howard Community College

Fundamentals of Academic Reading, a non-transferable credit course, prepares students to read academic text at the college ... see job

Part-Time Faculty: Nursing Education MS
Walden University

Walden University is focused exclusively on providing a superior university experience for adult professionals through the ... see job