LHE7014 North Central University Leading a Community College Presentation For this assignment, create a PowerPoint presentation for the Board of Directors

LHE7014 North Central University Leading a Community College Presentation For this assignment, create a PowerPoint presentation for the Board of Directors to discuss leadership. Include responses to the following in your presentation:

How should community college leaders address the opportunities and challenges that face them to assure the place of strong community colleges in the community of higher education?
What barriers do these institutions face?
Are there elements in community college programs that these and other authors overlooked in developing this community resource?

Incorporate appropriate animations, transitions, and graphics as well as “speaker notes” for each slide. The speaker notes may be comprised of brief paragraphs or bulleted lists.

Length: 10-12 slides (with a separate reference slide). Include 3-5 sources.

Notes Length: 150-200 words for each slide 448818
Wood and HiltonCommunity College Review
CRW40310.1177/0091552112448818
Articles
Five Ethical Paradigms
for Community College
Leaders: Toward
Constructing and
Considering Alternative
Courses of Action in
Ethical Decision Making
Community College Review
40(3) 196­–214
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091552112448818
http://crw.sagepub.com
J. Luke Wood1 and Adriel A. Hilton2
Abstract
This article encourages community college leaders to employ ethical paradigms
when constructing and considering alternative courses of action in decision-making
processes. The authors discuss four previously articulated paradigms (e.g., ethic of
justice, ethic of critique, ethic of care, and ethic of the profession) and propose an
additional paradigm—the ethic of local community. The ethic of local community is
a communitarian and utilitarian frame embodied by the philosophical underpinnings
and mission of the community college. Questions designed for praxis are proffered
following a discourse on how each paradigm is defined and described in extant
literature.
Keywords
community college mission, community college service districts, ethics, leadership
Leadership in the community college is an ethical enterprise, as leaders confront complex, multidimensional, and dynamic moral issues in their everyday practice (Hellmich,
2007; Nevarez & Wood, 2010; Vaughan, 1992). This sentiment is echoed by Furman
1
San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA
Upper Iowa University, Fayette, IA, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
J. Luke Wood, San Diego State University, 3590 Camino del Rio North, San Diego, CA, 92108 USA
Email: luke.wood@sdsu.edu
Wood and Hilton
197
(2004), who suggests that the field of educational leadership is “fundamentally a moral
endeavor” (p. 215) and explains that literature on education administration indicates
that the profession is embodied by a moral imperative. This imperative requires responsible stewardship over resources, personnel, and students (Fullan, 2003; Maxcy, 2002).
Responsible stewardship necessitates navigation around numerous potential pitfalls (Davis, 2007a, 2007b), which are compounded by ongoing change (e.g., dwindling resources, accountability, demographic shifts). As noted by Nevarez and Wood
(2010), “responding to constant change and evolving with a rapidly shifting social
landscape while maintaining the community colleges [sic] mission of access has been
the challenge, call, and opportunity of community college leaders for more than a
century” (p. 100). They stated that responding to change requires leaders to engage in
ethical leadership and decision making. However, Beckner (2004) remarked that educational leaders rarely ground their decision making in ethical or philosophical theory;
rather, they rely upon experiential knowledge and personal views. Ideally, theory and
practice should coinform ethical leadership in the community college (Hellmich,
2007). This premise is the guiding motive of this article.
With this premise in mind, this manuscript encourages community college leaders
to employ four ethical paradigms (ethic of justice, ethic of critique, ethic of care, and
ethic of the profession) when constructing and considering alternative courses of
action in decision-making processes (Shapiro & Gross, 2008; Shapiro & Stefkovich,
2005). Furthermore, the authors of this manuscript propose the concept of ethic of
local community as an additional frame to be used in decision making. This frame is
embodied in the philosophical underpinnings and mission of the community college.
Questions designed for praxis (the nexus of theory and practice) are proffered following a discourse on how each paradigm is defined and described in extant literature.
The next section will discuss an ethical decision-making model for community college
leaders.
A Model of Ethical Decision Making
Anderson and Davies (2000) articulated a six-stage ethical decision-making model for
community college presidents and boards of trustees; though this model is designed
for presidents and boards of trustees, Nevarez and Wood (2010) have suggested that
the stages of this model are applicable to all community college leaders. Anderson and
Davies stated that ethical issues are multifaceted, meaning that each stage in the
model is fluid, dynamic, and multidimensional. Stage 1 consists of identifying the
ethical issues or problems facing community college leaders. Anderson and Davies
noted that problem identification is aided or stagnated by moral sensitivity. They
observed that in addition to the ability to recognize signals of immoral acts, moral
sensitivity includes an affective reaction to these acts and an understanding of how
immorality impacts all individuals within an organization. Stage 2 includes the acquisition of data from multiple sources including advice from peers and attentiveness to
one’s affective response to the ethical breach. In particular, emphasis is placed on
198
Community College Review 40(3)
consulting colleagues with no professional ties to the issue. Anderson and Davies
stated that colleagues can provide suggestions for data gathering, serve as a safe outlet for discourse, and suggest potential resolutions. Stage 3 requires leaders to engage
in critical questioning, including personal introspection of leaders’ emotional
responses to the ethical breach, examination of actions taken by leaders in similar
circumstances, and investigating existing laws, codes, and policies relevant to the
issue.
Stage 4 suggests that leaders should construct or consider alternative approaches to
resolving the dilemma. Anderson and Davies suggested that leaders consider three
planes of decision making when constructing alternatives. These planes are based
upon Kohlberg’s (1984) levels of moral judgment. At the first level, decision making
occurs on a normative hierarchy where varying levels of powers are evident. At the
next level, decision making illustrates collective caring, compassion for others, and
support for societal cooperation. At the third level, hierarchical structures are eradicated and emphasis is placed on the importance of society while individual justice is
fostered.
Stage 5 necessitates that leaders evaluate the multiple alternative approaches identified in Stage 4. The criterion used by Anderson and Davies (2000) for evaluating
alternatives is primarily situated in two domains. The first domain suggests that an
analysis of alternatives should be based upon laws and existing codes of ethics. The
second domain places virtues, particularly “autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence,
fidelity and justice” at the center for decision making (p. 723). In Stage 6, leaders
select and enact an alternative based upon likely outcomes derived from the evaluation
criteria. Enacting this decision may require leaders to make difficult choices that place
ethics above immoral, and sometimes normative, behaviors.
This aforementioned model highlights several core elements of an ethical decisionmaking process. Nevarez and Wood (2010) stated that ethical decision-making models
have four primary steps in common: identification of a problem, gathering data, conceptualizing and evaluating alternative courses of action, and implementing a course
of action. They noted that Step 3 (constructing, considering, and evaluating alternative
courses of action) encompasses Stages 4 and 5 of the model espoused by Anderson
and Davies (2000). However, although Anderson and Davies provided some direction
on how to evaluate potential courses of action, little attention is given to the process of
constructing and considering alternative ethical approaches. Thus, this article provides
an in-depth treatment of this process, suggesting the use of five ethical paradigms to
be used to construct or consider potential approaches to resolving ethical dilemmas.
Ethical Paradigms
This section will examine five ethical paradigms (ethic of justice, ethic of critique,
ethic of care, ethic of the profession, and ethic of local community). Each paradigm
will be defined, described, and accompanied with questions for praxis. Figure 1 illustrates that they are distinct, though interrelated, concepts. According to Shapiro and
Wood and Hilton
199
Figure 1. Ethical paradigms
Stefkovich (2005), ethical paradigms aid ethical decision making in several ways.
Paradigms support leaders in examining the frames or “ways of thinking” that they
are most inclined to use, contemplating actions outside their normative behaviors and
approaches, considering more holistic steps to issue resolution, and engaging in
reflexive practice. All ethical theories presented fall within three ethical metatheories:
deontology, teleology, and axiology. In short, deontological-based theories focus on
mechanisms by which decisions are made, and teleological-driven theories center on
the outcomes of decision making. In a different conception, axiological theories are
concerned with virtues that guide decision-making processes (Beckner, 2004).
Ethic of Justice
The ethic of justice is an ethical frame that conceptualizes issues, holds confidence in,
and enacts decisions based upon “the rule of law and the more abstract concepts of
fairness, equity, and justice” (Shapiro and Stefkovich, 2005, p. 13). From this perspective, leaders’ decisions are guided through extant laws, rules, policies, codes, and
procedures. Beckner (2004) has referred to this “rule-based” decision making as a
morally objective, deontological, nonconsequentialist manner of contextualizing ethical dilemmas. This approach is morally objective in that preestablished principles,
rules, and laws guide leaders’ conceptions of dilemmas. Thus, this paradigm may be
200
Community College Review 40(3)
perceived as an objective way to resolve dilemmas, because it is devoid of personal
or cultural inclinations. This is an important notion for moral objectivists who adhere
to the conception that truth “exists prior to and apart from observation and thought”
(Nash, 1996, p. 49).
The ethic of justice is deontological in that leaders have a duty, obligation, and
responsibility to adhere to the rules governing their profession (Maxcy, 2002).
Therefore, the intent of their action in adhering to these rules is paramount (Stedham,
Yamamura, & Beekun, 2007). Because intent rather than outcome (or means as
opposed to ends) is of cardinal importance, the ethic of justice is nonconsequentialist
(Beckner, 2004). As a nonconsequentialist approach, leaders should not consider the
consequences, or ends, of their actions (Northouse, 2007; Strike, Haller & Soltis,
2005). Instead, they should make objective decisions based upon predetermined rules
and principles. However, Delgado (1995) extended that this approach does not suggest
that leaders operating from an ethic of justice always believe that laws or rules are
always “right.” Rather, they acknowledge the imperfection of these laws, but enforce
them while operating under the conviction that law is improved over time. Further,
they work to change laws and rules believed to be inadequate or inequitable. However,
enforcement of law occurs until modifications have been enacted.
Maxcy (2002) stated that the ethic of justice is best conceptualized through the
work of John Rawls (1971), who equated justice to fairness, advocating that decisions be made through a veil of ignorance. A veil of ignorance suggests that decision
making should be blind to (or ignorant of) preconceptions and inequities while maximizing benefits for all parties (Hendrix, 2005). Further, Rawls’s perspective on justice
was grounded in two primary principles: (a) that every person engaged in or affected
by an action should be given treatment equal to that of others engaged in or affected
by the action, and (b) all individuals should have reasonably equal access to advantage
and decision-making authority; otherwise, injustice and inequity have occurred. Key
to Rawls’s conception of justice is that individual liberties should not be substituted
for the good of the community (Sucher, 2008). This notion contrasts Aristotelian,
Rousseauian, and Deweyian philosophical views in which societal good is emphasized
over individual good (Shapiro & Gross, 2008; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005).
It is important to consider that justice exists in several primary forms. Chryssides
and Kaler (1996) identified five primary types of justice: procedural, substantive,
retributive, remedial, and distributive. Procedural justice is the treatment of individuals in applying law in an impartial, unbiased, and fair manner (e.g., due
process). Although procedural justice examines the fairness of the application of
law, substantive justice focuses on the fairness of laws themselves. In essence, substantive justice critically examines whether laws serve to uphold parity or produce
inequities. Retributive justice centers on receiving “retribution” for wrongs through
the enactment of punishments for those who violate existing laws and codes.
Remedial justice also focuses on addressing wrongs, but through remediation or
reparations to address and counterbalance injustices that have occurred. Finally, distributive justice centers on the advantages and disadvantages of laws, resources, and
Wood and Hilton
201
power. Distributive justice is concerned with whether advantages and disadvantages
are equally distributed. As discussed by Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005), when operating from an ethic of justice “ethical issues such as due process and privacy rights
are often balanced against the need for civility and the good of the majority” (p. 13).
As a result, although the ethic of justice addresses the five forms of justice, there is
a focus on procedural justice (e.g., due process) and distributive justice (e.g., the
good of the majority).
Numerous laws, codes, policies, and procedures affect leadership in the community
college. As discussed by Nevarez and Wood (2010), community college leadership is
affected by rules emerging from the federal level (e.g., judicial rulings, accreditation,
federal aid policies, federal acts), the state level (e.g., governors, legislatures, commissions), and system level (e.g., governing and coordinating boards or commissions). In
addition, they discussed how rules from local entities (e.g., trustees, oversight councils, local government) and campus entities (e.g., shared governance, academic senates involving faculty and staff, faculty or staff unions) also affect leadership. Given
the complexity of governance structures in community colleges, which vary greatly by
state (Tollefson, 1999, 2009), community college leaders are accountable to a number
of constituencies and oversight bodies. Thus, from an ethic of justice perspective, college leaders have a responsibility to learn, understand, and abide by rules, codes, and
procedures. As a result, when leaders encounter ethical dilemmas, they may consider
several questions that may aid in constructing or considering alternatives from an
ethic-of-justice standpoint: What are the rules, codes, policies, and procedures relevant to this dilemma? Of these rules, are some more pertinent or important to an issue
than others? What are the implications for this issue with respect to society (Caldwell,
Shapiro, & Gross, 2007; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005)?
Ethic of Critique
The ethic of critique is juxtaposed to the ethic of justice in that it “critiques” moral
problems caused by the ethic of justice (Nevarez & Wood, 2010). The ethic of justice
recognizes that laws and codes may be imperfect but that leaders are to maintain these
laws until changed. In contrast, the ethic of critique views laws as providing an advantage to certain groups over others. In this light, law is seen as a support of social
hierarchies based upon race, class, and gender (Caldwell, et al., 2007; Shapiro &
Stefkovich, 2005). With respect to the community college, this conception is rooted,
at least in part, in its historical underpinnings. Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollattscheck, and
Suppiger (1994) extended that community colleges were designed to address two
polarized ends: to advantage the privileged by separating the elitists from the general
public and to satisfy populists who saw the community college as a mechanism for
social progress.
From the perspective of an ethic of critique, law is seen as distinct from ethics.
Examples of slavery, Nazi eugenics, and separate-but-equal policies illustrate how
laws can uphold hegemonic practices; with this in mind, adhering to laws can
202
Community College Review 40(3)
(at times) be viewed as unethical. As adeptly stated by Starratt (2004), “if the ethic of
justice looks towards fairness, the ethic of critique looks toward barriers to fairness”
(p. 47). The ethic of critique emerges from the epistemological values of critical theory, which, according to McLaren (2003), adheres to the notion that power, privilege,
injustice, and inequities are ubiquitous and imbedded within the social order. The underlying assumption of this perspective is that fairness cannot be acquired through extant
social systems (Starratt, 2004). Thus, critical theorists (and those operating from an
ethic of critique) work to challenge the social order. As such, leaders operating from
an ethic of critique view law and policy as social structures reinforcing inequities.
Furthermore, the language and multiple meanings derived from law and policy are
seen as contributing to inequities and subjugated realities (Yanow, 2000).
Unlike an ethic of justice orientation, which seeks equal treatment, leaders operating from an ethic of critique may consider whether equitable treatment may necessitate unbalanced actions (means) in the pursuit of equality (ends) (Shapiro & Gross,
2008). Accordingly, Shapiro and Gross defined the ethic of critique as a critical consequentialist perspective that identifies laws, policies, and structures that disadvantage
certain groups and the promotion of action to address identified inequities.
Consequentialism is the notion that consequences of actions are prioritized in decision
making. Or, more simply, the “ends” justify the “means” (Beckner, 2004). As such,
the ethic of critique emerges from a teleological tradition which affirms that the guiding motive of decision making is the intended outcome.
The ethic of critique is a morally based paradigm. Often, this paradigm is
employed by individuals who strive to create parity for others who have been disadvantaged by society (Starratt, 2004). However, just as there are many sublenses to
critical theory (e.g., critical race theory, Marxist theory, critical feminist theory),
there are multiple sublenses to take into account when considering dilemmas from
an ethic of justice standpoint (Maxcy, 1991; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005). Leaders
considering dilemmas from an ethic-of-critique standpoint should investigate how
rules have served to disaffect and disadvantage women, communities of color (e.g.,
students of color, faculty of color, staff or administrators of color), low income communities, the disabled, and older students (Schulte & Cochrane, 1995). This is a
particularly important point for community college leaders. Since the 1960s the
community college has grown exponentially (Phillippe & Sullivan, 2005). Rapid
growth has been coupled with increasing student diversity and marked representation from nontraditional student populations, such as minorities, part-timers, older
students, and the socioeconomically disadvantaged (Kasper, 2002-03; O’Banion,
1989; Planty et al., 2009; Provasnik & Planty, 2008). Thus, the ethic of critique
enables leaders and decision makers to become more attuned to the needs of multiple groups and constituencies.
Community college leaders engaged in decision making from an …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment