Considering Professional Ethics: June 2024

by

When does professional ethics require bending ethical norms and traditions?

By FASPE Chair David Goldman

I write from Poland, in the shadow of the sites of industrial murder. It is Poland where, in October of last year, voters rejected the far-right government that was trading on homophobia, the rejection of democratic systems of justice and a free press, and prejudice cynically promoted in the name of religion. 

I have also just spent weeks in Germany with the 2024 cohorts of FASPE Fellows, exploring memory in the shadow of Nazi crimes. Germany is a country that now, with the rise of a growing far-right political party trading on racism, Islamophobia, and nationalistic anti-immigrant mania, finds itself in the throes of a consuming fear. And this, for Germans, is in the all too familiar name of preserving national character and culture. 

Each of these efforts in far-right extremism, intended to promote anti-democratic control through fear and distrust, raises a basic FASPE theme: the responsibility of professionals, as influential leaders, not just to promote ethical norms and values but to take responsibility to lead the fight against those who attack ethical norms and values. The more difficult question that each raises is whether (and when) that responsibility may require violating traditional ethical rules and norms as a means of defending those same ethical principles. In other words, how far should the ethical professional go in standing up to the degradation of ethical values?

And, that is the question that is debated in earnest throughout Europe where far-right extremism is rising. 

Before asking the question in the American context, consider examples from Germany, which is currently under threat from such extremists:

  • We see that some in the German free press, the journalists, are actively and often unabashedly calling out the extremists, rejecting “bothsideism” and simplistic, potentially obfuscating, journalistic objectivity.
  • We see legal scholars and judges actively calling out the extremists and the threats that they pose, not hiding behind traditions of blind objectivity.
  • We see some in church leadership actively rejecting not just the far-right extremists’ policy and language, but even formally disallowing far-right extremists from church leadership.

In other words, as it would seem in this context, true professional ethics, and committed ethical leadership, sometimes requires rejection of ethical norms and expectations–in the name of a greater ethical calling. Can they really afford to give even an inch to these extremists?

Read more

On the other hand in the US:

  • American journalists, while certainly recognizing the lies that are euphemistically called alternative facts or conspiratorial truths, provide voice to the lies and even agree, for example, to rules of political debate that prohibit fact-checking.
  • In the spirit of long-established “rules” that assume self-regulation, American legal scholars and judges at the highest level accommodate objectively unethical behavior at the very highest level in the spirit of long-established “rules;” and lawyers act as mouthpieces for the worst kinds of liars, spewing the same anti-democratic and anti-justice lies as their clients. 
  • Church leaders ignore patently irreligious and immoral behavior.

Timothy Snyder wrote in his 2017 book On Tyranny about American naivete in thinking that those things cannot happen in America. Whether Snyder is correct–either about the threat to democratic values posed by the extreme right or about American complacency–can be debated. In any case, however, FASPE argues that the professionals must take a leadership role in ensuring our ethical values. Sometimes such bold defense may mean taking positions that may feel uncomfortable or untraditional. That discomfort is the price of ethical conduct.
Vigilance in the face of threats to fundamental principles that include democracy, a free press, and an independent non-political judiciary must take priority; and our professionals must be willing to face uncomfortable challenges, perhaps taking guidance from the German professionals who know what can happen.

"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts.
Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.

Considering Professional Ethics: May 2024

by

A New Profession to Consider: The Voting Public 

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

I write to ask, plead, for rationality in a world where the confluence of misinformation, demagoguery, and dangerous allusions bombards us. Seriously, what are we to do? Let’s begin by acknowledging that this is not new. We are reminded of FASPE Journalism Faculty member Andie Tucher’s recent Not Exactly Lying: Fake News and Fake Journalism in American History. Demagogues are not new, including in the United States. 

However, are the stakes higher today? Is this misbehavior more rampant, even more predominant and effective now? Does social media amplify while supposedly mainstream media is too often complicit (even in the name of supposedly cautious objectivity)? Yes, yes, and yes. 

Read more

Now, unlike any other time in our history, the very basics of our democracy are being threatened as a result of the very nature and intent of the misinformation and demagoguery. No, the elections were not, and there is no threat that they will be, rigged or stolen. No, the American system of Justice has not been converted into a banana republic of political witch hunts. No, QAnon is not real.

We need timely ways of thinking about this recurrent problem. Perhaps the answer lies in thinking about a different group of professionals, the consuming public, the voters. 

FASPE defines professionals by reference to those who have influence in their communities (defined broadly). We demand professionalism and expertise from those who have such influence. Thus, we now ask for that professionalism from those with the ultimate influence, the voting public. That responsibility lies with all of us–to take our role, as voting professionals, more seriously. Our decisions, as a voting public, affect our shared future.

Why are we, the consuming public, tolerating and even buying shoddy products? We know better, don’t we? We know better.

We ask for truth in advertising when we buy a car, yet we are pulled into (and tolerate) a hurricane of lies in the political sphere. We expect to have the freedom to choose which products to buy, yet we blithely permit new legislative restrictions on voting and corrupt gerrymandering that diminishes or even cancels our right to choose. We account for bombast from underhanded product sales tactics, yet we are drawn to political demagogues. We rely on a system of regulation that roots out the dangerous products on the market, yet we continue to accept candidates whom we know to be corrupt thugs and candidates whose words and behavior scream danger to democratic principles. We reject sales tactics that rely on racist, misogynistic ideas; we reject othering or discrimination of all stripes, yet we vote for candidates who blatantly (or not so blatantly) travel in such territory. On the other hand, our better selves are even willing to sacrifice and pay a bit more for our products in order to protect the workers who produce the products and to ensure the basic legitimacy of the marketplace, yet we all too often select candidates solely based on our own petty and selfish prejudices (and pocketbooks).

We, as voters, must demand and vote for products that are not based on misinformation, demagoguery, and dangerous allusions even where those products may seem to satisfy our individual desires at the moment. We as voters need to question our ethics as we practice our profession.

"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter. Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.

Considering Professional Ethics: April 2024

by

Ethical Risks of Self-Reinforcing Groupthink; the Elite and Prestigious are Not Immune

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

FASPE examines professionals who behave(d) badly; and asks why? We see normal people whose familiar motivations can lead to what seems obviously unethical to the casual observer. Money, status, competition, success, solving problems—and on and on. But, let’s here consider what may be even more insidious and alluring: the power, the draw, of the group. Consider the following:

We regularly see professionals within the world’s prestigious institutions engage in clearly unethical activities. 

Not Bernie Madoff in his self-made robbery, but lawyers at the great law firms issuing tax opinions and designing structures that reek of the unethical; editors at the most revered news organizations who willingly ignore the most basic tenets of ethical journalism; engineers and algorithmists at the most innovative tech companies who ignore the most obvious of future unintended consequences; doctors at our most renowned research hospitals whose research methods scream ethical failure; consultants at the most recognized consulting firms who define success without regard to ethical consequences; senior officers at America’s most honored military units whose actions are inexplicable by any measure; the great accounting firms, trusted businesses, and on and on—where senior executives violate any known ethical smell test.

Why? How do we explain this? No, the answer is not that elite institutions are constitutionally or inherently unethical or that they breed bad people. In many respects it is to the contrary.

Read More

 Can it, instead, be the ethical risk that comes with a tradition, even history, of exemplary behavior?

  • Over the years, we have spoken with many young professionals at these great institutions who willingly admit that they defer the ethical questions to their seniors—on the theory that senior people at prestigious organizations must know the ethically right answers, that to have risen within such an organization speaks to their ethical reliability. 
  • Perhaps even more prevalent is the risk of the arrogance of the elite. Because of their status, is there an unstated internal implication that they are entitled to pronounce what is ethical? If they do it, it must be ok. If the leadership, if the policies, at [pick a name] condone [pick an ethically questionable act/behavior], then, well, it must be fine. Sometimes the consequences are tragic—think of those well publicized failures of members of the Navy Seals or Green Beret; sometimes the consequences are existential to the institution—think of Arthur Andersen; sometimes the consequences are reputationally disastrous. Worse, though, consider what unethical actions we do not know about because they were shielded by the reputation of the organization.

Sometimes these ethical risks arise not within existing, even elite, institutions, but instead in environments of our own making, where within our small groups we create our own ethical constructs in service to the group and without regard to otherwise obvious ethical constraints. 

  • Do we even unintentionally or subconsciously ignore ethical boundaries in support of our family unit? Isn’t that the case in the most blatant situations involving compromises that we have seen parents make to “assist” their children gain entry to elite universities?
  • How often do lawyers or other service providers design their own self-serving, self-reinforcing ethical structures in the micro-environment between service provider + client? In the extreme, does that define the interactions between lawyers or consulting firms and pharmaceutical companies or tobacco companies that were major contributors to the opioid crisis and cigarette-caused cancer?
  • Don’t we know of situations where the special relationship between journalist and source or doctor and patient devolve into the unethical not out of ill-intent, but because of the importance of the relationship and the distinction of the project?

Otherwise normal and well-meaning people are vulnerable to act unethically. Not intentionally, perhaps not consciously, even not out of personal (or selfish) motivations. But, rather, because of the allure of the group. Even the group that forms a justifiable and well-earned elite, even the groups that we establish ourselves with the best of intentions.

The lesson: ethical behavior requires self-awareness and constant vigilance. Professionals: question your ethics. 

"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts.
Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.

Considering Professional Ethics: March 2024

by

Would We Watch Marcus Welby and Cliff Huxtable Today?

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

The authority and influence with which we imbue our professionals translates into leadership; and that leadership extends, for example, beyond just the individual doctor/individual patient relationship. As we create health policy, for example, we rely on medical professionals, not, say, police professionals, to help fashion that policy. We grant authority to the doctor because she is a professional in the medical profession. That concept seems self-evident and fundamental to a well-functioning society. My question: do we still believe that?  

 Does our expectation of diversity and our rejection of the very notion of elitism mean that we must also deny the concept of the professional? That is, is there a role today for Marcus Welby and Cliff Huxtable–the iconic representations of professionals, here doctors?

For some, this question may seem bizarre–of course we recognize the influence and importance of our professionals. But, the challenge to the entire idea of the professional has been teed up by those who understandably see that the concept has been co-opted and misunderstood by those who improperly apply an anachronistic (and unethical!) view of the professional. 

Presumably Drs. Welby and Huxtable both went to an Ivy League college and a “fancy” medical school. Dr. Welby was always well-coiffed, conservatively dressed–he likely slept either in suit and tie or white coat. Dr. Huxtable was always either in white coat or fabulously stylish sweater. They lived in perfect homes, with perfect wives, perfect children. We can easily imagine Welby on the golf course; we know that Huxtable was active on the courts–basketball and tennis. While we cannot be sure, they likely attended religious services but not at a mosque, synagogue or mandir (to name a few). 

And, they were trusted.

Read more

Is professionalism defined by gender, elite education, clothing, economic power, and athleticism? Does professionalism depend on gender, elite education, clothing, economic power, and athleticism? If the answer to either is yes, then the anti-professional must be right.

The problem is that those characteristics were the accouterments of the professional of the 1950s. But they must not define them today! We must not see the accouterments as defining the professional or professionalism.

So, what are the traits and values that qualify the professional for the influence and trust that we depend on? Consider whether any of these sound like Cliff Huxtable and Marcus Welby, even if hidden behind their clothing, style, or other accouterments: expertise, objectivity, curiosity, integrity, judgment, creativity, reliability, availability, commitment, empathy, altruism, selflessness, self-awareness. 

We can discuss which of the above are fundamental, what others we want to add–perhaps depending in some cases on the profession. But, we know that none of the above assumes any specific race, religion, gender, or cultural heritage; any particular schooling or family wealth; a personal appearance or style. 

So, why this crisis of trust, crisis of definition? It is no revelation to say that we are a society in transformation, one that is far from defined by the supposed white male symbol of expertise or trustworthiness. Do luddites exist? Are there many who remain tethered to the white male symbol? Yes to both. But, this must not be a political discussion; this is not a debate. There has been progress; and we require more. Professionalism does not lie in the past. 

Our greatest risk lies in a class of prospective professionals who themselves reject true professionalism because they believe (or fear) that it remains dependent on the old models. That is itself an act of anti-professionalism that undermines the need for ethical leadership.

In fact, this is a false and entirely counter-productive discussion. The remnants, however powerful, of the outdated models and symbols have absolutely no place in the present, no possibility in the future. The existence of the remnants must not preoccupy, or be daunting to, the prospective professional who does not look like a Welby or a Huxtable. 

Professionals: do not deny your responsibility. Consumers of professional services: do not reject true professionalism. 

"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.

Considering Professional Ethics: February 2024

by

Is "Trust But Verify" Now Obsolete?

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

We were all a bit bemused when Ronald Reagan frequently used the phrase (interestingly, without noting that it is in fact, ironically, an old Russian proverb) in discussing nuclear disarmament treaties with the Soviet Union. We took the need for verification as an unfortunate but necessary concomitant under these particular circumstances when trust, alone, would normally have sufficed. Fair enough.

Fast forward to 2024 when the whole concept of trust seems so old-fashioned, so quaint. Nowhere is this felt more than in our professions and in our professional institutions, namely the pillars of a functioning society. These foundational pillars become fragile when we do not trust the individuals inside of them.

One might wonder which came first–the breakdown in trust or our clearly dysfunctional society? Does it matter? The fact is that dysfunction thrives on a lack of trust; and that is what we have now.

The FASPE Reunion this year is focusing on the concept of trust within the professions. Namely: what are the core causes of the breakdown in trust? What is the impact of that breakdown?  Why does trust matter? And, most importantly, what can the individual professionals, our Alumni (!), do to play a role in the restoration of trust?

Read more

Let’s be clear. We are not going to return to a world of Marcus Welbys, but does that mean that we must live in a world of deniers or skeptics of medical science; we are not going to return to a world of Thurgood Marshalls, but does that mean that we must live in a world of well-founded lawyers’ jokes that assume ill-motives for every word uttered or written by lawyers; we are not going to a world in which technologists and business executives are seen through the romance and belief in Bell Labs, but does that mean we must, as our default positions, deny technology and question all business? Shall I mention Walter Cronkite and modern media? Or this or that religious group that is more identified by [sometimes extreme] political positions than their spiritual foundation?

And, let’s also be clear that the professions have earned this level of suspicion and distrust. From the doctors behind the so-called Tuskegee “medical” experiments to Rudy Giuliani and his band of “legal” theorists of election denial (let alone a Supreme Court whose Chief Justice, himself, speaks often about the lack of trust); from Elizabeth Holmes and her breakthrough “technology” to the “journalist” Tucker Carlson. Unethical all. Unprofessional all. And, tragically, these individual acts of ethical failure lead to a suspicion of their entire professions. And, of their underlying systems and institutions–medicine and the CDC; the legal system and the Supreme Court; Journalism and Fox News and The New York Times. And on and on.

It is trite to say that trust cannot be acquired, that it cannot be returned overnight. But, it is not trite to say that trust in the professions begins with trust in the individual practitioners. One by one.

Professionals: Question your ethics. A functioning society depends on it.

"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts.
Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.

Considering Professional Ethics: January 2024

by

Who's on First; the Ethics of Participating in a Democracy?

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

In 2024, voters in 64 countries representing nearly one-half of the world’s population (over 60% if we eliminate China from the denominator) will be electing their countries’ leaders. The percentage decreases only a few percentage points if we include only free and fair elections, thus eliminating Russia from the denominator.

Quite a responsibility! Along with enormous potential for good (or not so good). 2024 is truly a consequential year for democracy, for basic geopolitical, cultural and democratic considerations.

I am reminded of two of my friends. One whose political views I generally share, one maybe not so much. Let’s call them “Abbot” and “Costello”; we can each decide who was on first, which was on second. 

I had a continuing argument with Abbot during a recent senatorial election. One of the candidates (let’s call him “Jacob”) was a member of our party of choice, his voting record was almost always as Abbot and I favored. But, both Abbot and I knew, for certain, that Jacob was objectively corrupt; irrespective of this or that acquittal (yes, he had been prosecuted), we both knew that he was corrupt and unapologetically so. Abbot insisted that “we” must vote for Jacob. “Yes, ok, he is corrupt,” Abbot would say, “but we need his vote in the Senate; and, more, we might lose the majority in the Senate if he loses.” Abbot insisted that his vote for Jacob was the right thing to do because of Jacob’s voting record and because of the implications around the balance of power in the Senate.

Read more

I reminded Abbot of a recent election in another state where the candidate (let’s call him “Stewart”) of the “other” party was credibly accused of seriously improper behavior; and Abbot had then made the argument that a vote for Stewart was cynical and unethical. Politics and partisan issues, Abbot had then told me, must be subservient and secondary to ethics. Hmm. How does Abbot distinguish voting for Jacob from voting for Stewart? Simple, he said, “the political stakes are too high.” So much for the primacy of ethics? 

My other friend, Costello. Costello was vocal, and he was rich. A vocal, and huge financial, supporter of candidates of the “other party.” Always. We would argue about his political views and his candidates, but I could never convince him of the errors of his ways. Then came an election, a very big election, where the candidate of Costello’s party (let’s call him “John”) was objectively unethical, dishonest, and even undemocratic, in ways that everyone recognized. And, John’s opponent was an individual (let’s call her “Diane”) whose politics were absolutely abhorrent to Costello. On every issue, Costello’s positions were diametrically the opposite of Diane’s, more aligned with John’s. 

Here is what Costello publicly stated after refusing to provide any financial support to John, words to the effect of: “John is X, Y and Z [all pejorative commentaries of John’s character and morality]. I will not vote for him. Our Republic will survive four years of Diane.” 

My question: what had happened to my friend Abbot’s soul, to his understanding of fundamental right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and unethical? How could someone on “my side” be so duplicitous and someone on the “other side” care so much about ethics? 

Our civic responsibility is not just to vote, but to vote in a responsible and ethical manner. 

The protagonist in Kazuo Ishiguro’s brilliant Remains of the Day is a proper English butler of the early and mid-20th century. He speaks at length throughout the book about what is the most important fundamental characteristic of his profession; he concludes that the answer revolves around the overriding concept of “dignity.” Ishiguro’s butler labors throughout the book over the meaning of dignity. And, that is fine. 

By analogy, we at FASPE often remind our friends that we are not the ethics police. Our goal is to urge that the influencers, the professionals, behave ethically as they define the term. All we ask is that ethics be top of mind, that it be part of the equation.

When it comes to democratic voting, we are all influencers. And, again by analogy, I am not the “dignity police.” None of us should pretend to play that role. However, we fail as a society if each of us fails to take dignity, if we do not take ethics, into account when we are in the voting booth. Fundamentally bad things can happen when we are led by people without dignity, without an ethical North Star.

Our political leaders are at the top of the pyramid of professionals, i.e., those with influence. If they do not have an ethical North Star, if ethical behavior is not top of mind for them every day, then we, the public, are at risk. Put differently, hyper-partisanship cannot take precedence over an alternative that threatens our fundamental ethical responsibilities and values.

Ultimately, we must have leadership that is ethical, that embodies dignity. Otherwise, how can we be comfortable with the predictability that ethical behavior, regardless of partisan politics, survives intact, that we are an ethical and dignified society.

Costello was right, he knew who was on first. 

"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts.
Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.

When the Call Comes from Inside the House

by

Written by FASPE Business Fellows Brian Hathaway and Courtney Kaplan

What makes individuals complicit with objectionable policies? How should companies respond when legal, profit-maximizing behavior is viewed by some stakeholders as unethical?

Companies have become accustomed to challenges from legislators, regulators, and social movement activists. A recent wave of protests reflect the emerging power of a different set of stakeholders: junior employees. These public challenges "from within" call on company leaders to sever ties with problematic clients. The emergent debate touches on questions of complicity and corporate citizenship that are integral to FASPE's treatment of business ethics.

Online furniture retailer Wayfair recently became the latest instance of this trend. As this article summarizes, a tweet from a non-employee drew attention to the company "fulfilling a $200,000 furniture order for detention centers on the US-Mexico border." As the news spread, employees organized a walk-out, arguing that the company was profiting from the inhumane treatment of migrants. Executives responded to the uproar by donating $100,000 to the Red Cross, while reiterating a policy of selling "to any customer who is acting within the laws of the countries within which we operate."

In addition to Wayfair, many consulting and technology companies have experienced similar employee protests on a wide variety of issues. These encounters raise many worthwhile questions. How should a company respond to diverse and divergent views their employees hold? How and when should employees mobilize? And who gets the final say in defining a company's activities and exchange partners? While definitive answers remain elusive, we expect employee protests to become more frequent and even more consequential in the coming years.

Read the original article from the Boston Globe.

Time’s Up for the “Gay Panic” Defense

by

Written by FASPE Law Fellows: Shannon Joyce Prince and Carson Thomas

In June, New York joined six other states in banning gay-panic and trans-panic defenses.  These defenses allow a criminal defendant to claim that a violent act was a sudden emotional response to an unwanted sexual advance from a person of the same sex.  They descend from centuries-old common law "heat of passion," or provocation, defenses. In the mid-twentieth century, progressive legal thinkers called for penal codes to recognize the decreased culpability of defendants whose capacity was diminished by past mental and emotional trauma, including survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.  This shifted the focus from a specific set of external circumstances that would cause a "reasonable person" to act violently---i.e., finding one's spouse committing adultery---to the mental and emotional capacity of the individual defendant. The elimination of the gay-panic and trans-panic defenses seems to stem from a laudable desire by state legislatures to ensure that LGBTQ persons are afforded the full protection of the law.  This article identifies some positive outcomes from the expansion of provocation defenses and questions whether the elimination of the gay-panic defense might lead to unintended consequences, including potential limits on the ability of women to claim self-defense against men who had previously abused them. Provocation defenses also raise difficult ethical questions for criminal law practitioners. Should a defense attorney rely on a gay-panic defense to acquit their client despite the fact that the defense is predicated on prejudice?  Do bans against gay-panic defenses prevent defendants from protecting themselves against inappropriate sexual advances simply because the advances were made by someone of the same sex? Where do the concepts of trans-panic and “rape by deception” intersect, and what ethical questions should guide us in navigating that space? In making charging and sentencing decisions, how much should a prosecutor consider a defendant's prior trauma?

Read the original article from The New Yorker.

Are Google’s Publishing Profits Fake News?

by

Written by FASPE Journalism Fellows: Ian Kullgren, Christine Rushton, and Dustin Volz

Journalists, like everyone, can easily fall victim to their own confirmation bias, especially when the issue hits close to home. The New York Times this past week published an article based wholly on a study conducted by a group called the News Media Alliance that asserted that Google had made $4.7 billion from the work of news publishers last year through its search and Google News enterprises. The implication was that a monetary figure could be attached to the damage done to newsrooms across the country that have seen revenues fall as tech behemoths steadily taken more eyeballs--and advertising dollars--away from news publisher websites.

The methodology used to determine that dollar amount, however, was quickly scrutinized by other journalists, and many concluded it lacked merit. As FASPE Journalism faculty member Bill Grueskin noted in a series of tweets, the calculation relied on an offhand "comment (former Google vice president) Marissa Mayer made 11 YEARS AGO" and data extrapolation that appeared more like guesswork.

Publishing an entire article based on one study from a group with a thin track record would raise concerns in many cases about whether a news organization had done enough to verify the information being provided. Journalists are taught to always seek confirmation from other sources, especially if the source may have a particular perspective or agenda. But it is a constant challenge to maintain standards of verification when the information comports to a journalist or newsroom's preexisting views and prior reporting. When it does, journalists must consider whether a heightened level scrutiny of their reporting is required, and how to weigh the demands to produce clickable articles against the expectations to act prudently in order to get it right.

Read the original analysis by Nieman Lab.

Giving Beyond the Pews

by

Written by FASPE Seminary Fellows: Cornelia Dalton, Fr. Andrew J. De Silva, and Alissa Oleson

Last January, during a month-long time of spiritual and material fasting, Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, VA raised $150,000 by eliminating frivolous spending. At the end of the fast, church members were asked to donate the money to the church. They were not told where the money would go, just that it would go back into the community. Two HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) received the funds: Howard University and Bennett College. 

Alfred Street Baptist Church’s donation prompts the question of the responsibility that communities of faith have in helping those struggling in the community. While houses of worship often give firstly to those inside their faith family, Alfred Street chose to use the material result of their spiritual fast to assist the needy not necessarily in their community or even known personally to the community. Instead, as the assistant minister Marc Lavarin explained, it was an opportunity to both “support HBCU’s and ease a burden borne by individual students.” The worshipers’ generosity showcased their understanding that as a church, ethical responsibility extends beyond the recognizable faces in their pews. It also raises awareness to the rising cost of higher education followed by the rising student debt in the country. In raising awareness, it begins a discussion in and beyond the immediate faith community of why college education is climbing so drastically, as well as how to help ease the burden this places on so many.

The responsibility to give to the needy—espoused in all major religions—is particularly lived out in this case by addressing communities in which high cost of education limits access to education. Alfred Street Baptist Church partnered directly with HBCUs, but each faith community could work with partners or justice allies to address material needs beyond their spiritual community, raising awareness in the process.  

Read the original article at NPR.org.

Life Sentence or Gift of Life? Organ Donation and Incarcerated Individuals

by

Written by FASPE Medical Fellows: Alexa Kanbergs and Joseph Scarpa, Jr.

For the last decade, the number of people who require an organ transplant grossly outpaces the number of organ donations. Many proposals have been offered as a potential solution to this problem, including replacing the current opt-in system with a standardized opt-out program. Other proposals include expanding the living donor pool to previously restricted populations, like people currently incarcerated. Prisoners, particularly those facing the death penalty, may consider donating an organ in exchange for a reduced sentences. Is this coercion? Does it create perverse incentives for incarcerated individuals? Is this substantively different than reducing a sentence for typical reasons, like “good behavior”? Does the State have a duty to reduce a person's sentence because he or she has donated an organ? Some prisoners deeply committed to reconciliation, responsibility, and transformation may find fulfillment in donating an organ, even deferring a reduced sentence to remove any hint of coercion. Others, eager to reduce their sentences, might be tempted by a perverse incentive structure. Should evaluating potential living donors who are incarcerated require a greater standard of rigor to determine the “proper” motivations for donating? Or should the potential for coercion prevent incarcerated individuals from donating altogether?

Read the original articles from the Organ Procurement & Transplant Network and an original manuscript on the topic from The Annals of Thoracic Surgery.

Houses of Worship Must Remind the World of Things We Vowed Not to Forget

by

Written by FASPE Seminary Fellows: Cornelia Dalton, Deacon Andrew J. De Silva and Alissa Oleson

This past February marked the one-year anniversary of the Parkland school shootings. Noting how quickly the 24-hour news cycle changes yesterday’s priorities, one church chose art to remember the names of those killed in the Parkland massacre. “We wanted to make sure that we found a way to use our public space to memorialize and remember…” remarked Rev. Nathan Detering, senior minister at Unitarian Universalist Church in Sherborn, MA. Placing empty school desks outside the church with the first names of those tragically killed written on the backs, the church created a poignant memorial.

The primary responsibility of a house of worship in the face of tragedy is prayer for victims; for perpetrators; and for the culture that allowed this. A house of worship ought to be a voice of remembrance calling the faith community to spiritually unite in asking God for continued help in a given situation.

A house of worship also has the sacred responsibility to speak out against injustice. It is for this reason that Unitarian Universalist Church used their memorial as an opportunity to gather and reflect on the shooting. In the face of tragedy, we too can be inspired by the Church in Sherborn to encourage the difficult conversations about why it happened and what we as faith filled people are being called to do about it.

In stark contrast to a culture led by an ever-changing news cycle, houses of worship draw on timeless texts and ancient beliefs as their source for this responsibility. Thus, it seems that they hold a privileged place in our increasingly frenetic culture of reminding us of things that we promised not to forget and our responsibility as people of faith to be instruments of change in our world around us.

Read the original article in The Boston Globe.

Outsourcing Ethical Limits

by

Written by FASPE Law Fellows: Shannon Joyce Prince and Carson Thomas

Should it be illegal for an American scientist to participate in foreign research that would be unlawful if conducted in the U.S.?  Recent news about the genome editing of two babies in China has prompted important ethical discussions in the medical and scientific community.  It has also brought attention to the practice of "ethics dumping" that raises significant legal and regulatory questions. Ethics dumping can be defined as "the carrying out by researchers from one country (usually rich, and with strict regulations) in another (usually less well off, and with laxer laws) of an experiment that would not be permitted at home."  As academic and industrial research continues to globalize, there is a danger of a regulatory race to the bottom. How should regulators balance concerns about ethics dumping against charges of ethical imperialism, whereby powerful countries impose their cultural norms onto less powerful nations?

Though one would hope that the rule of law would universally enshrine respect for human dignity, as members of the FASPE community, we know that it can and will fail to do so at time.  What, then, is the responsibility of professionals to create ethical norms for their fields that constrain their behavior regardless of policy?

Read the original article in The Economist.

Socially Responsible Investing: Passive Activism or Active Change?

by

Written by FASPE Business Fellows Brian Hathaway and Courtney Kaplan

In May 2019, a new investment fund focused on Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) issues raised $851M in its launch. BlackRock's iShares ESG fund signals a growing trend of investor interest in so-called "responsible" investing, as ESG factors can be used to measure the sustainability and ethical impact of a given business.

In past decades, ESG was often seen as a "nice-to-have" by investors, but it was understood that prioritizing sustainability would likely yield lower returns. Today, investors are less willing to accept that trade-off, and are starting to demand that companies deliver on both promises. Today, as "people [have begun] to realize that these environmental, social, and governance issues mattered to financial performance, both the corporate community and the investment community started to see things differently." In 2019, over 50 percent of assets invested in Europe are invested in sustainable investing; even in the US, that number now tops 25%.

While we applaud the ESG movement, we want to be cautious that it is discerning enough to truly reward companies that are behaving responsibly and influence companies to change. Without clearly defined metrics or true oversight, companies may take advantage of this trend without cleaning up their operations or making real commitments to change. Furthermore, investors may feel that by buying an ESG fund is a way to "check the box" on sustainability without having to make any difficult sacrifices. Is that a reasonable expectation? What are the risks associated with funds that promise that investors can have it all?

Read the original article in The Wall Street Journal.

Is it Time to Say Final Goodbyes to Our Definition of Brain Death?

by

Written by FASPE Medical Fellows: Alexa Kanbergs and Joseph Scarpa, Jr.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death.”  Motivated by the number of patients in hospitals that were permanently unconscious but retained biological function, this document outlined a definition and criteria for determining brain death.  The criteria included confirming the patient is unconscious and cannot respond or perceive stimuli, loss of key brainstem functions, and that all reversible causes have been ruled out. The wide acceptance of the concept of brain death proposed in the Harvard Report then led to significant advancements in the field of organ donation.  Patients determined to meet the criteria for brain death who have consented to organ donation are the ideal source of organs, as circulation can be maintained until organ procurement takes place. The concept of brain death has been controversial since its origins, but with technology advancements that allow organs to remain viable for longer periods without a beating heart, does the definition still stand the test of time?

Read the original article on The New York Times.

When Journalism Comes Up Short, Maternal Health Suffers

by

Written by FASPE Journalism Fellows: Ian Kullgren, Christine Rushton and Dustin Volz

News outlets covering the highly-political issue of abortion rights struggled to hit the mark while reporting on the new legislation in Alabama this May. A piece by Alexandria Neason in the Columbia Journalism Review criticized the coverage as short-sighted and damaging to related coverage on maternal health. Both local and national journalists who report on maternal health spoke out on how the national outlets sensationalized the signing, making it seem as if the law crept from nowhere despite significant work by both proponents and opponents leading up to its passage. National coverage also caused confusion, with many outlets failing to explain that the law won't go into effect for another year. Women who misunderstand might not seek treatment they can still receive for that time.

“News publications can make it seem like a doomsday,” writer Clarissa Brooks said in the CJR piece. She added that it appeared the media didn't pick the story up until the final votes.

This spotlighting of abortion rights can leave reporting on other issues in women's and reproductive health in the shadows, as reported by journalists like Anne Claire Vollers. Writing for Alabama Media Group, Vollers is spending the next year covering the consequences of inadequate access to maternal health care in the state, an issue related to but not connected to the new abortion ban. When writing about politically charged news, journalists need to seek an understanding of not only the story of the moment, but also the larger implications that otherwise might go unreported. This is especially concerning when the topic involves critical issues today like maternal health.

Read the original article in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Physician and Author Dhruv Khullar to Receive a FASPE Award for Ethical Leadership and Be Named Distinguished Fellow for 2019

by

NEW YORK, NY – Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics (FASPE) announced today that Dhruv Khullar will be named Distinguished Fellow for 2019 and receive a FASPE Award for Ethical Leadership. Khullar will be presented the award at FASPE’s annual gala and awards dinner on Monday, April 15 at CNVS in New York City.

Khullar, MD, MPP, is being honored as a Distinguished Fellow by FASPE for his broad reach in bringing public awareness to key issues in medical ethics through his writing for lay publications and his policy work.

Dr. Dhruv Khullar, a 2012 FASPE Medical Fellow, is being honored by FASPE with a Distinguished Fellow Award at the 2019 FASPE Annual Awards Dinner on April 15.
(Photo Melanie Einzig)

Khullar, an assistant professor of healthcare policy and research at Weill Cornell Medicine, is a frequent contributor to The New York Times, as well as other lay and academic publications, where he explores the intersection of medicine, health policy and economics. In 2012, Khullar was a FASPE Medical Fellow.

“In many respects, our Distinguished Fellow honor is the most important of our annual Ethical Leadership Awards,” said David Goldman, Founder and Chair of FASPE, which runs innovative fellowship programs that challenge graduate students and early-career professionals in business, journalism, law, medicine and religion to confront their ethical responsibilities.

“With this award we recognize a Fellow who has gone on to exemplify FASPE’s mission of ethical leadership. Khullar leads through his widely-read writings, which address a range of issues at the heart of medical ethics today and which challenge us to engage in thoughtful and transparent debate. We are proud to acknowledge Khullar’s important contributions in exploring traditional areas of medical ethics as well as those arising from the use of new technologies.”

Khullar, who holds a medical degree from the Yale School of Medicine and a master’s degree in public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School, recently worked in the ABC News Medical Unit, helping to communicate evolving health stories, and was previously at the White House Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.), focusing on Affordable Care Act implementation. In addition to The New York Times, Khullar has written for publications such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Atlantic, Slate, Health Affairs, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). He currently serves as a Senior Research Fellow at NYC Health + Hospitals, and as Director of Policy Dissemination at the Physicians Foundation Center for Physician Practice and Leadership. 

“FASPE was such a powerful experience and one that I have thought about frequently over the years,” said Khullar. “Those relationships, lessons and insights have only grown stronger and more relevant with time. It is an honor to be recognized by an organization that has given me, and many others, so much. I am deeply grateful." FASPE is presenting Awards for Ethical Leadership to two other honorees at its gala. The global consulting and professional services firm Accenture is this year’s Corporate Honoree. Accenture is being recognized for its leadership in applying ethical principles to the development and use of artificial intelligence and other innovative 21st-century technologies. The Posthumous Honoree will be Fritz Bauer, the late judge and prosecutor who prosecuted Nazi officials following World War II in German courts, despite active opposition from his superiors.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas Accepts FASPE Posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership on Behalf of the Late German-Jewish Prosecutor Fritz Bauer

by

At a private reception at LRN on April 2, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas accepted FASPE Posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership on behalf of the late German-Jewish prosecutor and judge Fritz Bauer. David Goldman, Chair and Founder of FASPE, presented the Award to Maas.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas accepts the Posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership on behalf of Fritz Bauer. FASPE Chair and Founder David Goldman presented the Award to Maas. PHOTOTHEK/THOMAS INO

Fritz Bauer (1903 – 1968) was a German-Jewish judge and prosecutor who prosecuted Nazi officials following World War II in German courts, despite active opposition from his superiors. Raised in Stuttgart, Bauer became Germany’s youngest judge in 1930 at the age of 26. In 1933, he was dismissed from his position and arrested and imprisoned for political activity against the Nazi party. Bauer fled to Denmark in 1935 and later to Sweden. After the war, in 1949, Bauer returned to Germany, eventually becoming the chief prosecutor for the State of Hessen. He focused his career on reforming the German justice system and bringing Nazi officials to trial at a time when Nazis continued to hold key government positions and anti-Semitism continued to pervade German society. Bauer set in motion the arrest of Adolf Eichmann in 1960. He is probably best known for the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials, which began in 1963 and brought to trial 22 former officials of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas speaks at the reception honoring Fritz Bauer with the FASPE Posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership. PHOTOTHEK/THOMAS INO

Maas is widely known for championing Bauer’s legacy. In 2015, when he was Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, Maas established the Fritz Bauer Thesis Award for Human Rights and Contemporary Legal History. Maas has also said that the legacy of the Holocaust was pivotal to his decision to enter politics.

“I am deeply honored to accept the FASPE award on Bauer’s behalf,” said Maas, “The history of the German judiciary doesn’t have many heroes. One of the few was Fritz Bauer. He stood up for democratic values during the Weimar Republic, rejected the barbaric Nazi regime and continued his fight for justice in postwar Germany. Facing suspicion, even hostility, Fritz Bauer stayed true to his conviction that a democratic Germany could only have a future if it confronted its shameful past. His belief in justice and his quest for humanity inspire us, day by day, to stand up for human rights, to defend democratic values and to protect human dignity itself.”

Accenture to Receive a FASPE Award for Ethical Leadership

by

NEW YORK, NY – Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics (FASPE) announced today that Accenture is this year’s Corporate Honoree for the Award for Ethical Leadership, which will be presented at FASPE’s annual gala and awards dinner on Monday, April 15 at CNVS in New York City.

Accenture, a global professional services company, is being recognized for its leadership in applying ethical principles to the development and use of artificial intelligence and other innovative 21st-century technologies.

Paul Daugherty, Accenture’s Chief Technology & Innovation Officer, will be accepting the Award on Accenture's behalf.

“We expect ethical leadership from our professionals. They are the influencers in our communities,” said David Goldman, Founder and Chair of FASPE, which runs innovative fellowship programs that challenge graduate students and early-career professionals in business, journalism, law, medicine and religion to confront their ethical responsibilities. “Accenture is a company that exemplifies the leadership that is at the core of FASPE’s mission.”

“I am honored to be accepting this award on behalf of Accenture,” said Paul Daugherty, Accenture’s Chief Technology & Innovation Officer. “FASPE is an inspiring organization whose mission to train people to make ethical decisions amid internal and external pressures is more important than ever.

“At Accenture, we believe powerful new technologies such as artificial intelligence will have a huge impact on improving the way every person on the planet works and lives,” continued Daugherty. “However, this can only be the case if organizations put digital trust and ethics at the center of their approach. It is not optional. We are proud of the work that Accenture has pioneered on responsible AI, providing a vision, framework, approach and tools for our own people and for other organizations to ensure that AI is applied with a human and ethical focus.”

Accenture works at the intersection of business and technology to improve performance and create sustainable value. Daugherty, who also leads Accenture’s Technology Innovation & Ecosystem group, oversees the company’s technology strategy and is engaged in driving its innovation through R&D and by leveraging emerging technologies.

Presenting the Award for Ethical Leadership to Daugherty will be Mike Eichenwald, an Advisory Leader at the consulting firm LRN and a member of FASPE’s Business Faculty.

Accenture is dedicating the award to its late CEO, Pierre Nanterme, “whose exemplary vision and ethical leadership made our work possible,” said Daugherty.

FASPE is also presenting Awards for Ethical Leadership to two other honorees this year. The Posthumous Honoree will be Fritz Bauer, the late judge and prosecutor who prosecuted Nazi war criminals following World War II under German law and in German courts, despite active opposition from his superiors. And Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, is being honored as a Distinguished Fellow for his broad reach in bringing public awareness to key issues in medical ethics today through his writings and public appearances. Khullar, a physician at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and an assistant professor in the Weill Cornell Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, was a FASPE Medical Fellow in 2012.

About FASPE

FASPE provides a unique historical lens to study contemporary ethics in the professions. Currently entering its tenth year of operations, FASPE’s Business, Journalism, Law, Medical and Seminary programs engage graduate students and early-career professionals in an intensive two-week study trip to Germany and Poland, where they explore contemporary ethical issues in their respective fields by first studying their professional counterparts in Europe during the period of 1933-1945. FASPE selects approximately 65-75 Fellows each year for its five programs through a competitive application process. It currently has over 500 alumni fellows, many of whom are emerging as leaders in their fields.

About Accenture

Accenture is a leading global professional services company, providing a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations. Combining unmatched experience and specialized skills across more than 40 industries and all business functions — underpinned by the world’s largest delivery network — Accenture works at the intersection of business and technology to help clients improve their performance and create sustainable value for their stakeholders. With 477,000 people serving clients in more than 120 countries, Accenture drives innovation to improve the way the world works and lives. Visit us at www.accenture.com.

Visit www.faspe-ethics.org/gala to learn more about the 2019Awards for Ethical Leadership and to purchase tickets. To learn more about FASPE, visit www.faspe-ethics.org.

FASPE is a New York non-profit corporation with tax qualification as a 501(c)(3) entity.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas to Accept FASPE Posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership on Behalf of the Late German Prosecutor Fritz Bauer

by

NEW YORK, NY – The Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics (FASPE) will present its 2019 Awards for Ethical Leadership at its annual gala and awards dinner on Monday, April 15, 2019 in New York City. The event will begin at 6:30 pm and will be held at CNVS. 

This year, FASPE’s Posthumous Honoree is Fritz Bauer, the late judge and prosecutor who distinguished himself for prosecuting Nazi war criminals following World War II, and in particular, for having been the first prosecutor to bring criminal charges under German law in German courts against officials at Auschwitz, despite active opposition from his superiors. 

Heiko Maas, German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be accepting this year’s posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership on Bauer’s behalf at a private cocktail reception on April 2 in Manhattan. German Consul General David Gill will attend the FASPE gala on April 15 to represent Maas and the German Consulate. Gill also serves as one of the FASPE gala’s honorary chairs. 

“We believe there is no individual more deserving of our posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership than Fritz Bauer,” said David Goldman, Founder and Chair of FASPE, which runs innovative fellowship programs that challenge graduate students and early-career professionals in business, journalism, law, medicine and religion to confront their ethical responsibilities by first studying their professional counterparts in Nazi Germany. “Simply put, his actions define ethical leadership within the law—even more so for having been undertaken at personal risk and for the benefit of the larger community. 

“FASPE’s choice of the person to accept the award is just as important as the choice of the posthumous honoree himself,” continued Goldman, “We are particularly honored that Minister Maas is able to accept the Award on Bauer’s behalf, as we believe that his entire body of work as a public figure embodies the principles that Bauer stood for.” 

Maas is widely known for championing Bauer’s legacy. In 2015, when he was Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, Maas established the Fritz Bauer Thesis Award for Human Rights and Contemporary Legal History. Maas has also said that the legacy of the Holocaust was pivotal to his decision to enter politics. 

“I am deeply honored to accept the FASPE award on Bauer’s behalf,” said Maas, “The history of the German judiciary doesn’t have many heroes. One of the few was Fritz Bauer. He stood up for democratic values during the Weimar Republic, rejected the barbaric Nazi regime and continued his fight for justice in postwar Germany. Facing suspicion, even hostility, Fritz Bauer stayed true to his conviction that a democratic Germany could only have a future if it confronted its shameful past. His belief in justice and his quest for humanity inspire us, day by day, to stand up for human rights, to defend democratic values and to protect human dignity itself.” 

FASPE is also presenting Awards for Ethical Leadership to two other honorees this year. The global consulting and professional services firm Accenture is this year’s Corporate Honoree. It is being recognized for its leadership in applying ethical principles to the development and use of artificial intelligence and other innovative 21st century technologies. Physician, researcher, author and 2012 FASPE Medical Fellow Dr. Dhruv Khullar will be named Distinguished Fellow. Khullar is being honored for his broad reach in bringing public awareness to key issues in medical ethics today through his writings and public appearances. 

About FASPE 

FASPE provides a unique historical lens to study contemporary ethics in the professions. Currently entering its tenth year of operations, FASPE’s Business, Journalism, Law, Medical and Seminary programs engage graduate students and early-career professionals in an intensive two-week study trip to Germany and Poland, where they explore contemporary ethical issues in their respective fields by first studying their professional counterparts in Europe during the period of 1933-1945. FASPE selects approximately 65-75 Fellows each year for its five programs through a competitive application process. It currently has over 500 alumni fellows, many of whom are emerging as leaders in their fields.  

Visit www.faspe-ethics.org/gala to learn more about the 2019Awards for Ethical Leadership and to purchase tickets. To learn more about FASPE, visit www.faspe-ethics.org.  

FASPE is a New York non-profit corporation with tax qualification as a 501(c)(3) entity.