Ethics in Public Support/Opinion

This article really made me think about sports again.

Mayweather reportedly has not, and will not, accept responsibility for his actions even though he has served time for domestic violence. Domestic abuse is awful as it is, but the abuser here has built a career and name on physically beating people. It's his job and he is good at it. Everyone from the hotel staff to the cable networks are making money off of his ability to hurt people. I did not see one person or organization withdraw their support from this fight in recognition of his abuse record and lack of attempt to work on his violence and self-awareness. 

Is this right?

Ethics in Family History

This is one of my favorite shows!

It is fascinating learning about other people's histories. Probably in part because I don't really know my own. The ethical dilemma here is that Ben Affleck was a guest on the show when it was revealed that one of his ancestors was a slave owner. He was upset and embarrassed and requested that information be omitted from the segment.

Seriously, Ben? If you are a US Born person and White, odds are there were some slave owners in your family tree.  Slavery is the economy our country was built on. Right up there with stealing the land from the people who were already living here.

But the drama does not end there folks. The emails from the conversation Gates had with the higher ups have surfaced! This is the first time anyone has ever made this request- that an unsavory piece of their history be kept quiet. AND Gates was told to not reveal the information for fear of possible fall out!

What do you think? Was it right for Sony pics to authorize Gates to omit a piece of Affleck's history? And again, it's Sony pictures and the emails! The hits keep comin'....

Ethics in Data Reports and Recruitment

Corinthian is being fined for lying to students about job attainment prospects. Their false data led students to believe if they graduated from the school, they would have a very good chance of getting a job or being placed into a job upon graduation.  Corinthian’s job-placement reporting was shoddy at best, and they aren’t alone:

“For-profit colleges are particularly vulnerable to scrutiny over job-placement rates because most of them qualify for federal student aid by preparing students for careers and because their accreditors specifically require them to meet job-placement standards. But in some cases, accreditors’ policies for such reporting leave a lot of room for inconsistency.”

I find this practice highly unethical. It hurts the student in so many ways. A for-profit college is more expensive than their not-for profit counterparts and students are more like to become enmeshed in student loan debt. These students have wasted resources (time and money) that can’t be given back. They’ll have to begin anew somewhere else and hope they can afford it.  It makes me wonder what other recruitment efforts and data are misconstrued or falsified on all campuses.

April 15, 2015

$30-Million Fine for Corinthian May Portend Tougher Scrutiny of For-Profits

By Andy Thomason and Goldie Blumenstyk

Washington

The U.S. Department of Education has fined Corinthian Colleges $29.6 million for "misrepresentation of job-placement rates to current and prospective students in Corinthian’s Heald College system," the department said in a news release on Tuesday. The department also said it was cutting off Title IV federal student aid to two Heald campuses.

"This should be a wake-up call for consumers across the country about the abuses that can exist within the for-profit college sector," the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, said in the release. "We will continue to hold the career-college industry accountable and demand reform for the good of students and taxpayers." Corinthian said that the allegations were based on flawed analysis and that it planned "to contest everything."

The department’s readiness to impose the fine — one of its largest ever — over allegations of falsified job-placement rates may also be a sign that it is devoting renewed attention to such reporting by for-profit colleges, and could have implications that extend far beyond Corinthian.

"Clearly the department has an increased focus on this," said Debbie Cochrane, research director at the Institute for College Access and Success, an organization that has pressed for tighter regulation of for-profit colleges. "Anyone who oversees college-placement rates should also take notice," she said, referring to accreditors, state agencies that monitor colleges, and other regulators. "Everybody should be on the lookout for the kind of funny math that Corinthian seems to have been using."

For-profit colleges are particularly vulnerable to scrutiny over job-placement rates because most of them qualify for federal student aid by preparing students for careers and because their accreditors specifically require them to meet job-placement standards. But in some cases, accreditors’ policies for such reporting leave a lot of room for inconsistency.

"It’s been a kind of Wild West" in job-placement reporting, said Robert Shireman, a former department official who now runs the organization California Competes. When Mr. Shireman was in the department, he was involved in efforts to toughen regulations governing "misrepresentation" by colleges in recruiting students. He said that the department’s action on Tuesday "may be a warning signal" that it planned to pursue more such investigations on those grounds.

In its news release, the department said it had found 947 false placement rates provided to students and prospective students, as well as to accreditors and to the department.

Read the department’s letter to Corinthian Colleges.

Last year the department stepped up its financial oversight of Corinthian Colleges, a move that unexpectedly precipitated the for-profit educator’s collapse. It reached an agreement with the department to sell 95 of its campuses and teach out the rest.

The two Heald campuses were among a dozen slated to be sold, but in recent days the college’s president, Eeva K. Deshon, had asked for leniency from California’s attorney general, Kamala D. Harris, who is suing Corinthian. The Sacramento Bee reported that Ms. Deshon had said the attorney general’s office’s "unreasonable demands" were, in effect, blocking the sale of the Heald campuses.

‘Let Off the Hook’

A spokeswoman for the attorney general said on Tuesday that the office has no official role in the sale of the colleges and that Heald’s request that potential buyers receive a guarantee that would shield them from liability from the lawsuit was not acceptable.

"They want to be let off the hook for the way they defrauded students," the spokeswoman said. And even after a sale, some students who had entered Heald under "false pretenses" during Corinthian’s ownership would still be enrolled. "It’s not as simple as saying, ‘Oh, new buyers, fresh start,’" she said.

In a written statement, a spokesman for Corinthian, Joe Hixson, called the department’s claims "highly questionable" and "unsubstantiated," and he said they would threaten the sale of the Heald campuses. "These unfounded, punitive actions do nothing to advance quality education in California," he said, "but would certainly shatter the dreams and aspirations of Heald students and the careers of its employees."

Corinthian also maintained in its statement that the department had taken its actions based on "faulty data and analyses discovered and disclosed more than 18 months ago. Yesterday, we attempted unsuccessfully to forewarn the department that it should not rely upon data driven by a single erroneous report."

In an interview, Mr. Hixson said potential buyers had met with officials of the California attorney general’s office on Monday and had "received the most positive signals so far" that the state’s case might be close to settlement. Corinthian is eager to sell the campuses because it is facing pressure from its creditors and it needs the money. "We’ll only be able to extend this for so long," said Mr. Hixson, adding that the timing of the new federal fine "is very detrimental to getting that deal done."

But the California attorney general’s office said on Tuesday that its case was continuing. The California case includes allegations that echo the federal ones, as well as claims that Corinthian misused official military seals in the recruiting of veterans and misled students about the transferability of credits.

Attorney General Harris said in a written statement that she applauded the department for its action. She also took the opportunity to reiterate a request that the department "act quickly to relieve these students from their student-loan debt burdens."

Andy Thomason is a web news writer. Follow him on Twitter @arthomason.

Goldie Blumenstyk writes about the intersection of business and higher education. Check out www.goldieblumenstyk.com for information on her new book about the higher-education crisis; follow her on Twitter @GoldieStandard; or email her at goldie@chronicle.com.

- See more at: http://0-chronicle.com.innopac.library.unr.edu/article/30-Million-Fine-for/229355/#sthash.7YJw6wIX.dpuf

Ethics in Social Media, #SAInvest

I participated in a webinar this morning through NASPA. It was about ethics and social media. It was refreshing because they talked about students and professionals, including examples and etiquette tips. It did not bash students, it did provide some interesting take aways.

Take Away 1

Context Collapse

“We mitigate ourselves in different ways as part of the human condition and there are different contexts in which we act and speak. Social media causes all of those contexts to collapse upon one another. All of those different contexts can see each other at once. Students have a difficult time understanding that.”

I like the way the speaker explained that we are different parts of ourselves in different areas of our lives. The way we act in church is different from the way we act in class, which is different from the way we act at home, around friends, around family, and at work. He called these the various contexts. When it comes to social media, all those different areas can see what we post, filters withstanding. So the cultural norms and rules of etiquette we follow in real life at all these different contexts do not exist and are not at play when we use social media. One post might be fine for one context and completely inappropriate for another, but all contexts see it. So there is tension.

Take Away 2

“We are all one tweet away from being fired.”

So true.  I think we need to be careful about what we put on social media, but I also think people should just be good people in general. If someone is scared of putting out hateful, racist, misogynistic remarks for fear of being fired, maybe they should really examine why they are so hate filled in the first place.

Take Away 3

“Our posts matter and we should have a social media presence, but oversharing is a problem.”

I like that the presenters suggest as professionals we should have a social media presence. We can be role models, we can be current, we can add to the creative process and share resources. Multiple reasons exist in support of us being on social media. However, I also like that the presenters gave examples of how we ourselves overshare and can do better about balancing our personal truths and the extent to which we share healthy behaviors. They provided an example of a professor who tweets often about wanting to lose weight or drop a couple of dress sizes. Instead the professor could tweet about finding a great lo-calorie recipe or a great place for hiking or walking to get exercise. The same sentiment of being health comes across without the tones of body shaming.

Take Away 4

“Social media did not create bad behavior, it just amplified it.”

So true! It also made it available for everyone to judge and comment on. 

I thought the presenters (pictured below), had great points. 

Do y'all see social media as an online place we can navigate ethically? In particularly when there are times when you are forced to participate in un-ethical  posts at no fault of your own because of the way social media works?

Ethics in Rubbernecking

I had never heard the term “rubbernecking” until I read this article last weekend. It’s all kinds of awful. I don’t know what would possess someone to take a picture in front of something tragic, then post it with witty and joyous taglines and hashtags.  

Of all the actions this latest group of people posing for a selfie could have taken, taking a selfie is not the action I would have assumed to be their first priority. Like many others, this group of people apologized for their actions later, after being told how reprehensible their actions there were. Interesting that it took a large number of people to point out their unethical decision for them to realize the depth of their mistake.  

Has the "selfie" phenomenon de-sensitized our culture?

Ethics at Conferences

I got back late last night from a national student affairs conference in New Orleans. There were over 7800 people in attendance from colleges, universities, non-profits, for-profits, and vendors from all over the world. It took less than 2% of our attendance to make the Chronicle over something inappropriate. Yik Yak.

I am still in awe that this happened and became such a trending topic! A little under 70 people posted unsavory comments about attendees, programs, promiscuity and cheating, and more. Get some ethics people! You are at a professional conference, probably being paid for by student fees or a state budget. I take issue with this in two ways.

First, be a role model always, in particularly while at work-related events. If you want to carry on, getting wasted, sleeping around, skipping meetings,- do so off the clock and not at a professional work conference. Go away on a vacation with some friends to a place where no one knows your name.

Second, using social media to express your personal behaviors and opinions while representing your place of work is inappropriate. Did y'all learn nothing from Justine Sacco??

I think it's our job to teach others how to behave in certain situations. We can't teach others and then not follow our own rules and guidance.We can't expect our students to become professional with ethics if we don't model that ourselves. I took six students to this conference and over the course of five days had not one issue. They were awesome, represented our college beautifully, and they enjoyed the experience. We went over expectations beforehand and I made it clear that acting a certain way brings perceptions and may get you fired. I also made it clear that they were privileged to have the opportunity to attend this conference at no cost to them and should be good stewards of those funds. Finally, I made it clear that I don't act that way, so they had better not do anything to embarrass me, our program, or the college. I wonder if these people, who were anonymously posting all over the place, had that same conversation with their supervisors?

What do y'all think?

Ethics in Policing continued..

In 1993 I was 11 years old, oblivious to a horrific murder spree being conducted next door in California.  When Gian Luigi Ferri, a broker from LA, filed for divorce, he was described as lonely, sad, and hurting. He was observed sitting for hours in his car, staring into space. And yet no one reached out to him.Thanks to technology the original footage and original reporting can still be viewed and read. There was a Nevada connection, it was in Nevada where Ferri incorporated his company. A company that would suffer huge financial blows. Additionally, every weapon he used in the incident was purchased in Las Vegas. Interesting that the article said:

"The semi-automatic Intratec DC9 is legal to possess in California without registration with state officials." And even more interesting, ""Believe it or not, they are legal," said Mayor Frank Jordan, the former police chief here. "There is absolutely no place for them in an urban society. They are used for only one purpose, warfare."

Almost 22 years later, we're still asking the same questions, still arguing over gun rights and gun control, still watching loved ones die.

This is a fear of mine. Do I pass by people in pain, in need of help, without pausing to show compassion or an interest in helping them? In my  head I understand that if someone has a plan and wants to hurt others, odds are they will find a way. Gun or no gun. Interference is probably not going to change the course they have set upon. But my heart says something else...

Did y'all read that email from Campus Police this morning? About the full scale emergency preparedness training taking place over Spring Break? I wonder, after hearing about the "militarization of police" what kind of equipment will be used in their training. And what type of emergency are they training for? Do they see the general public as the enemy? Will it be heavy on force? Or will the training be more of an opportunity to build relationships between all of the different first responder agencies on and off campus? Maybe they'll talk about lots of different kinds of emergencies? Power outages, weather, earthquakes...

Today there was lively debate at our state legislature about AB 148- a bill that would allow people to conceal and carry on campus, in schools, and in daycares. I'm sure there are already guns in those places. It is Nevada. I wrote an opinion on our state government website that mirrored what the Reno Police Chief said tonight. I would not feel safe knowing that anyone was allowed to carry on campus because I don't trust people to control their emotions, to continuously undergo training and safety protocol, to keep a safety on, and to not lose their tempers. In general, people don't receive training on conflict management and resolution or the de-escalation of a situation. All it takes one stray bullet near a child to irrevocably change a family. Near anyone really. But the thought of random people having guns near my child in daycare on campus and off campus at her school makes my skin crawl. At what point do we put less focus on needing a gun for self defense and protection, and more focus on creating a culture that doesn't need those protections?