This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
All of us are involved in the struggle of determining and doing what is correct. We are constantly faced in our personal lives and in our community lives with the questions of: What ought I do and what ought I not do? What is the correct behavior? What is the correct judgment? What is the correct decision? But what is correct? What seems correct for us often seems incorrect for others. What seems correct in one situation doesn't seem correct for other situations. Our ethical yardsticks seem often to be made of rubber, they can be stretched when needed. These questions and concerns are important to the discussion of ethical decision making and the discussion becomes more complex when we move from the individual based questions
to questions about the ethical nature of the entity called the "campus community''.
Behavior within the campus community often seems not to meet ethical expectations. Nearly every week, the Chronicle runs news articles highlighting violations in university and college athletic programs. Someone has been giving money or favors under the table. Recently, more reports are surfacing regarding the reporting of false data in scientific papers. Student personnel workers often (perhaps unknowingly) aid and support student events that are ridden with
alcohol, cocaine, and sexual assault. The community's reaction to these events is similar in most cases; an individual or small group is found to be at fault, but not much happens at the community level. The point is that at the present time it is difficult to imagine what might stir the ethical soul of our campus communities. We are, however, not without ways to conceptualize the issue of ethics at the community level.
At least three approaches can be utilized for judging ethical behavior at the community level: (1) losing an ethical principles approach to aggregate from an individual decision making level to a community level; (2) Using a fulfillment of community values approach; and (3) Using a community process approach.
The Ethical Principles Criterion
The first criterion utilizes the ethical principles approach. What are the ethical principles that apply to decision making within the campus community? Karen Kitchener (1985) has offered a list of five principles that can be used to judge campus decisions: (1) Respecting autonomy; (2) Doing no harm; (3) Benefiting others; (4) Being just; and (5) Being faithful. Caring can be added as a sixth principle to reflect the recent gender research on the importance of caring and fostering helpful relationships (Delworth & Seaman, 1984; Noddings, 1984).
These principles are not absolutes. They give us guidelines, but they don't solve all the ethical issues. In real-life situations some principles may be and often are in conflict with each other (Kitchener, 1985). To determine the level of ethical behavior for the campus community as a whole, each individual decision can be assessed by the ethical principles approach and the results aggregated to form a ''community level assessment."
Fulfillment of Community Values Criterion
A second criterion in judging ethical behavior in the community is derived from the work of Brown (1985). It is the fulfillment of values approach. The campus as a community has a set of values and goals usually reflected in a mission statement that guides its activities. For example, Brown (1985) suggests the following list of community level values for higher education: (1) Peace issues; (2) Vocation as calling; (3) Developmental progress for all; (4) Theory and research; and (5) A humane learning environment. By adding the community values component, ethical behavior not only should be in concert with the ethical principles, but also give fulfillment to the goals of the campus community.
Community Process Criterion
Finally in addition to ethical principles and the fulfillment of values criteria, the community process approach requires that one must also consider the process by which a decision was reached, or a judgment finalized, or a program implemented. Was the process an ethical one? What are the ethical considerations for community processes?
The ecosystem design approach suggests all those who are to be impacted by the decision must have an opportunity for meaningful input into the process (Huebner and Banning, 1987). Kelman and Warwick (1978) suggest questions like the following need to he asked when judging the ethical nature of the community process: Who participated in the process? How were diverse interests represented? Who will benefit, who will suffer? By what means will the decision be implemented, by coercion or by facilitation? Who is involved in the ongoing evaluation?
Choice of Criterion Makes a Difference
The following scenario illustrates that the choice of criterion can lead to different conclusions regarding the ethics of a decision. A Vice President for Student Services instructed the campus bookstore manager to remove Playboy, Playgirl, and Penthouse magazines from the shelf. It was a decision that the Vice President made based on the knowledge of the relationship between pornography and violence against children, women, and men. From the ethical principles approach the decision seemed correct. The decision also seemed ethical from the community fulfillment of values approach. The campus had a strong personal abuse policy which stated: "...
Abusive treatment of individuals on a personal or stereotyped basis will be prohibited ..." So from both an ethical principles approach, and a community value fulfillment approach, it appeared to be an ethical decision.
The decision, however, failed to meet the criteria of the community process approach. No one was consulted. The issues were not discussed with students or with other members of the campus community. No outside input was sought. The decision was ethically flawed from the perspective of the community process approach.
Participation
While all three criteria will help a campus community assess its level of ethical behavior, it is the community change process criterion that produces a participatory framework. From this framework, questions and interpretations of ethical principles can be discussed, community values can be assessed and debated, and the diversity within the community can be assured of a voice.
Participation provides the road to an ethical community.
Editors Note: (References can be found on the back page.)
Associate Dean of Students The College of Saint Rose
Albany, New York
"While reading "What Do We Mean By Environment?" by Will Barratt ( Vol. V No. 3 of The Campus Ecologist) I thought of how I could sensitize the Resident Assistants on our campus to the environment they and their fellow students live in ... I would present a program on how the Residence Hall environment influences student behavior...The Residence Halls vary from a traditional, institutional one with five floors, long corridors. and two hundred students, to a four floor suite style Residence Hall with eighty students, to former homes that have been renovated into Residence Halls. The population in the houses range from nine to forty students with a Resident Assistant in each one.
The program began with a discussion of Lewin's equation B = f(PxE) . . . We then moved to Barratt's more specific model of what constitutes an environment: People, Organizational Structures, Things, and Outside Influences and defined these according to Barratt ... I asked them to write down the characteristics of the People, Organizational Structure, Things, and Outside Influences of their houses/floors and they related to the behavior and interaction of the students in their house or on their floor.
After discussing what they had discovered about their environment, we formed small groups. Their assignment was to design a Residence Hall that would maximize the interaction of the students within the environment ... The groups then shared their design with everyone and were asked to explain why they chose to include or leave out certain aspects.
The reaction was quite positive. The Resident Assistants thought of some very interesting designs in some very interesting places... sound proofing rooms for quiet, wellness rooms with exercise equipment and refreshments, computer rooms, and music rooms...I feel the program did sensitize the Resident Assistants to their environments and the components that make up their environment . . ."
October 24, 1988.
Volume Vl No. 4.of The Campus Ecologist featured the concept of ecological transitions including a resource reference section devoted to the concept of transitions. Several additional resources should be added. One is the excellent book titled Counseling Adults in Transition by Nancy K. Schlossberg and published by Springer Publishing Company of New York in 1984. She presents a very helpful conceptual framework for the concept of transition including a detailed and expansive taxonomv of the individual in transition (Page 108). Schlossberg's work is recommended to those who found the summary treatment of the concept (Vol.VI No.4) helpful.
A second book, Transitions: Making Sense of Life's Changes, is also suggested for reading. This 1980 book by William Bridges and published by Addison-Wesley is not as strong from a conceptual and research point of view as Schlossberg's, but it does provide an interesting presentation of the underlying pattern of all transitions which includes the concepts of endings, neutral zone, and new beginnings.
On the application side of the concept, The Resource Center of Arapahoe Community College in Littleton, Colorado is using the concept of transitions as a major programmatic theme. Their goal is to assist students in taking advantage of the available resources to help in the opportunities and obstacles produced by the many types of life transitions. The address of The Resource Center is Arapahoe Community College, 5900 South Santa Fe Dr., P.O. Box 9002, Littleton, CO 80160-9002.
Banning. J. (1986). A template for an issues/context model For doing research and evaluation ethically. The Campus Ecologist, 4(2), 2-4.
Berkowitz, M. & Oser. F. (Eds.). (1985). Moral education: Theory and application. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Brown, R. (1985). Creating an ethical community. In H. canon & R. Brown (Eds.). Applied ethics in student services. New Directions for Student Services, no. 30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, R. & Canon, H. (1978). Intentional moral development as an objective of higher education Journal of College Student Personnel, 19, 426-429.
Bookchin, M. (1982). The ecology of freedom. Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire Books.
Bookchin, M. (1986). The modern crisis. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
Canon, H. & Brown, R. (Eds.). (1985). Applied ethics in student services. New Directions for student services. No. 30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Inc.
Churchill, L (1982). The teaching of ethics and moral values in teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 296-306.
Delworth, U. & Seeman, D. (1984). The ethics of care: Implications of Gilligan for the student services profession. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 489-492.
Eilbert, L. & Eilbert H. (1982). A structural framework for conceptualizing ethical issues in behavioral-ecological practice. In A. Jeger & R. Slotnick (Eds.), Community mental health and behavioral-ecology (pp. 403-422). New York: Plenum Press.
Evans, N. (1987). A framework for assisting student affairs staff in fostering moral development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 191-194.
Huchner, L. & Banning, J. (1987). Ethics of intentional campus design. NASAL Journal, 25(1), 28-38.
Kelman, H. & Warwick, D. (1978). The ethics of social intervention: Goals, means, and consequences. In G. Bermant, H. Kelman, & D. Warwick (Eds.). The ethics of social intervention, (pp 3-33). New York: John Wiley.
Kitchener, K. (1985). Ethical principles and ethical decisions in student affairs. In El. canon & R. Brown (Eds.). Applied ethics in student services. New Directions for Student Services, no. 30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kohlherg, L. & Turiel, E. (1973). Moralization, the cognititive development approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston .
Krasner, L. (1962). Behavior control and social responsibility. American Psychologist, 17, 199-204.
Kurtines, W. & Ciertwitz, J. (Eds.). (1984). Morality, moral behavior, and moral development. New York: Wiley.
Michael, D. (1967). Social engineering and the future environment. American Psychologist, 22, 888-892.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sashkin, M. (1984). Participative management is an ethical imperative. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 4-22.
Taylor, P. (1987). Problems of moral philosophy: An introduction to ethics. (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co, Inc.
Trevino,L. (1986). Ethical decisions making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617.
Winston, R. Jr, & McCaffrey, S (1983). Ethical practice in student affairs administration. In T. Miller, R. Winston, Jr., & W. Mendenhall (Eds.) Administration and leadership in student affairs. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.