UMGC Week 7 Ethical Behavior Respect for Diversity & Civil Discourse Discussion Ethical Behavior, Respect for Diversity, and Civil Discourse Meeting the

UMGC Week 7 Ethical Behavior Respect for Diversity & Civil Discourse Discussion Ethical Behavior, Respect for Diversity, and Civil Discourse

Meeting the needs of diverse populations as one leads professional learning presents challenges to all leaders. Effective leaders must be aware of and plan for diversity in their organizations.

For this discussion, reflect on ethical behavior, respect for diversity, and civil discourse in your school, program, or organization, and then address the following questions:

What activities have you participated in or been aware of in your work setting that focused on ethical behavior, respect for diversity, and civil discourse? As you address this question, recall that diversity can include the following: exceptionalities, ethnicity, gender, orientation, intelligence, age, socioeconomic status, culture, religion, native language.
Were these initiatives effective? Why or why not? What changes would you recommend to enhance their effectiveness?
Include support from the literature in your post. Which Right Is More Right?
As Jill continues her professional learning journey, she recognizes the importance of reflecting upon
ethical practices, considering not simply the easy right-versus-wrong ethical decisions but the more
challenging ethical dilemmas that require consideration of right versus right, as the “right” decision is
often confounded by competing values and beliefs of those whom we lead. Jill is charged with leading a
personnel hiring committee that must recommend a new hire to lead the organization’s professional
learning/training team. The person hired will be responsible for developing training/curriculum designed
to address critical areas of continuing education for personnel to support organizational goals and
imperatives.
As Jill begins her preparation for the committee’s first meeting, she reviews the CVs and notes they are a
very diverse group in terms of experience, credentials, ethnicities, and nationalities, as well as other
characteristics. Jill quickly realizes that leading the committee will require strategic focus on essential
principles of ethical practice and respect for diversity, as well as attention to civil discourse, knowing
that her committee members are a diverse group as well in regard to their backgrounds, beliefs, and
values. The fundamental question: How must Jill plan to lead this committee to best assure a fair,
equitable, unbiased recommendation screened through each of the elements mentioned above?
Moreover, as new leader in her organization, Jill knows from her doctoral studies that ethical behavior
and human rights must guide her work and that she must distinguish differences between unethical
behavior and violation of human rights as she prepares to lead professional learning in her organization.
She is a bit perplexed as she considers the distinctions between ethical behavior and human rights.
At first glance, ethical practice might seem to be a very simple concept—just do the right thing! Upon
closer examination, however, the student of ethical practice discovers that commitment to this precept
challenges educators upon their encounters with ethical dilemmas. Shapiro and Stefkovich (1996) ask a
defining question:
According to John Dewey (1908), ethics is the science that deals with conduct insofar as this is
considered to be right or wrong, good or bad. . . . Looking at this definition from a critical perspective,
one might ask: Ethics approved by whom? Right or wrong according to whom? (p. 2)
Ethical behavior is relatively easy when faced with right versus wrong—one simply does the right thing.
Ethical dilemmas surface, though, when facing more complex decisions that involve right versus right.
Through this week’s readings and discussions, you will explore how your specialization or field addresses
ethical behavior for professional educators, and you will reflect upon real-world encounters with ethical
behavior observed in professional settings, screening your discussion through perspectives gleaned from
the readings.
Ethical Reasoning
Morris (2016) tells us:
In fall 2016, more than twenty million students enrolled across more than four
million colleges and universities in the U.S. One in four students were members of a
minority group, and approximately one million were international students. These
students interacted with approximately four million administrators and faculty and
staff members in a diversity of settings. Most of these students will easily transition
into a life of academics and social interactions. For others, insults, aggressions, and
lack of inclusion are a reality; and these experiences will shape their interactions
and perceptions . . . on the challenges facing the nation and world and considering
the role that post-secondary education plays in improving civil discourse nationally
and creating safe spaces for dialogue and personal growth. (p. 361)
Morris (2016) goes on to argue:
•
First, [we must] identify resources to support conversations around civil discourse,
social justice, and inclusion. Could we individually and collectively in every
department, college, and administrative unit resolve to make a difference—to rolemodel and ask our students to be kind, show compassion, be inclusive and fair, and
extend a hand of friendship? Maybe our academic words, like social justice, just do
not resonate. Perhaps people forget that words have power and can cause longlasting pain or can provide encouragement. While we may study and advocate for
equity, perhaps we should say that this campus and my class will discuss
challenging topics; but we will be characterized by the following values: to listen, to
reflect, to show compassion, to think critically, and to care about this community of
learners. I know: it sounds like Robert Fulghum’s All I Really Need to Know I Learned
in Kindergarten (1988). However, sometimes simple guidelines work best. (p. 361)
Use your Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your
Life text to quickly review the chapter you read last week:
Chapter 14, “Develop as an Ethical Reasoner,” pages 345–365.
If you didn’t complete the Blooming Park: Ethics, Diversity, and Personnel
Selection simulation last week, complete it now to begin work on the interviews
relevant to your organization: P–12 education, higher education,
business/corporate, or military. This activity will give you the opportunity to
grapple with the ethical questions that frequently arise in professional contexts,
which will be the focus of your assignment this week.
Reference
Morris, L. (2016). Collective action for civil discourse. Innovative Higher
Education, 41(5), 361–363. doi:10.1007/s10755-016-9376-5
Diversity and Multiculturalism
Diversity in all organization settings can take many forms. We may consider
differences across many criteria, including the following:
•
Ethnicity.
•
Ethnic identity.
•
Gender.
•
Gender identity.
•
Culture.
•
Ability and disability.
•
Developmental criteria.
•
Age and generation.
•
Other exceptionalities.
When taking account of this diversity, the principles of multicultural education
encourage us to acknowledge differences, addressing the reality of each
person’s experience, seeking the best possible outcomes for all.
Ethical Reasoning
Read Chapter 14, “Develop as an Ethical Reasoner,” pages 345–365, in the
following:
•
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning
and your life (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
This chapter focuses on foundations of ethical reasoning, including:
•
Ethical principles are not a matter of subjective preference.
•
All reasonable people are obligated to respect clear-cut ethical concepts and
principles.
•
To reason well through ethical issues, we must know how to apply ethical concepts
and principles to those issues.
•
Ethical concepts and principles must be distinguished from the norms and taboos of
society and peer groups, religious teachings, political ideologies, and the law.
•
The most significant barriers to sound ethical reasoning are the egocentrism and
sociocentrism of human beings (Paul & Elder, 2012, p. 345).
Institutional Review Board
Research requires careful compliance with the regulations set forth by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB). Review by the IRB is required for research by
all Capella doctoral learners. IRB review ensures research complies with federal
regulations and ethical practices for human protections. Capella University’s IRB
is responsible for reviewing all research involving human participants or records,
including all research by learners engaged in the dissertation process. The IRB
focuses on:
•
Protecting the privacy and confidentiality of participants.
•
Respecting the autonomy and dignity of participants.
•
Minimizing risks while maximizing benefits to participants.
•
Ensuring participants have adequate information to make informed decisions.
•
Weighing the benefits and risks of research and making sure each is equally
distributed.
Examine the information available at Capella’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB) page.
CHAPTER 14 DEVELOP AS AN ETHICAL REASONER
One of the most significant obstacles to fairmindedness is the human tendency to reason in
a self-serving or self-deluded manner. This tendency is increased by the extent to which
people are confused about the nature of ethical concepts and principles. To understand
ethical reasoning, the following foundations are essential:
1. Ethical principles are not a matter of subjective preference.
2. All reasonable people are obligated to respect clear-cut ethical concepts and principles.
3. To reason well through ethical issues, we must know how to apply ethical concepts and
principles reasonably to those issues.
• 4. Ethical concepts and principles should be distinguished from the norms and taboos of
society and peer group, religious teachings, political ideologies, and the law.
• 5. The most significant barriers to sound ethical reasoning are the egocentrism and
sociocentrism of human beings.
First we will seek to clarify the problem posed by ethics in human life: what ethics is, its
basis, what it is commonly confused with, its pitfalls, and how it is to be understood.
Following that discussion, we emphasize three essential components in sound ethical
reasoning: (1) the principles upon which ethics is grounded, (2) the counterfeits to avoid,
and (3) the pathology of the human mind.
•
•
•
WHY PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED ABOUT ETHICS
The ultimate basis for ethics is clear: Human behavior has consequences for the welfare of others. We
are capable of acting toward others in such a way as to increase or decrease the quality of their lives.
We are capable of helping or harming others. What’s more, we are capable of understanding—at least
in many cases—when we are helping and when we are harming others. This is so because we have
the raw (though usually undeveloped) capacity to put ourselves imaginatively in the place of others and
recognize how we would feel if someone were to act toward us in the manner in which we are acting
toward them.
Even young children have some idea of what it is to help or harm others. Children make inferences and
judgments on the basis of that ethical awareness, and they develop an outlook on life that has ethical
significance for good or ill. But children tend to have a much clearer awareness of the harm done to
them than they have of the harm they do to others:
•
“That’s not fair! He got more than me!”
“She won’t let me have any of the toys!”
“He hit me and I didn’t do anything to him. He’s mean!”
“She promised me. Now she won’t give me my doll back!”
“Cheater! Cheater!”
“It’s my turn now. You had your turn. That’s not fair.”
Through example and encouragement, we can cultivate fairmindedness in children. Children can learn
to respect the rights of others and not simply focus on their own desires. The main problem is not so
much the difficulty of deciding what is helpful and what is harmful but, instead, our natural propensity
to be egocentric. Few humans think at a deep level about the consequences to others of their selfish
pursuit of money, power, prestige, and possessions. The result is that although most people,
independent of their society, ethnicity, and religion, give at least lip service to a common core of general
ethical principles—that it is ethically wrong to cheat, deceive, exploit, abuse, harm, or steal from others,
that we have an ethical responsibility to respect the rights of others, including their freedom and wellbeing, to help those most in need of help, to seek the common good and not merely our own selfinterest and egocentric pleasures, and to strive to make this world more just and humane—few act
consistently upon these principles.
The United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights, which all countries have ratified, articulates universal
ethical principles. And a core of ideas defines the domain of ethicality and ethics, for reasonable people,
in a broad and global way. Many fail to act in accordance with ethical principles, however. At an abstract
level, there is little disagreement. Most people would argue that it is not ethically justifiable to cheat,
deceive, exploit, abuse, and harm others merely because one wants to or simply because one has the
raw power to do so. At the level of action, though, mere verbal agreement on general principles does
not produce a world that honors human rights. There are too many ways by which humans can
rationalize their rapacious desires and feel self-justified in taking advantage of those who are weaker or
less able to protect themselves. Too many forces in human life—social groups, religions, political
ideologies—generate norms of right and wrong that ignore or distort ethical principles. What’s more,
humans are too skilled in the art of self-deception for mere verbal agreement on abstract ethical
principles to translate into the reality of an ethically just world.
Further complicating the picture, the ethical thing to do is not always self-evident—even to those who
are not significantly self-deceived. In complex situations, people of seeming good will often disagree as
to the application of this or that ethical principle to this or that concrete case. One and the same act
often receives ethical praise from some and condemnation from others.
We can put this dimension of the problem another way: However strongly motivated to do what is
ethically right, people can do so only if they know what is ethically justified, and they cannot know this if
they systematically confuse their sense of what is ethically right with their vested interests, personal
desires, political ideology, or social mores or if they lack the capacity to reason with skill and discipline in
the ethical domain.
Because of complexities such as these, skilled ethical reasoning presupposes the art of self-critique and
ethical self-examination. We must learn to check our thinking for egocentrism, sociocentrism, and selfdeception. This, in turn, requires development of the intellectual dispositions described earlier in the
book, including intellectual humility, intellectual integrity, and fairmindedness.
Sound ethical reasoning often requires a thinker to recognize and get beyond the pitfalls of ethical
judgment: ethical intolerance, self-deception, and uncritical conformity. Sound ethical reasoning often
requires us to recognize when our reasoning is a reflection of our social indoctrination. Sound ethical
reasoning often requires us to enter empathically into points of view other than our own, gather facts
from alternative perspectives, question our assumptions, and consider alternative ways to put the
question at issue.
Few adults, however, acquire the skills or insights to recognize the complexities inherent in many
everyday ethical issues. Few people identify their own ethical contradictions or clearly distinguish their
vested interests and egocentric desires from what is genuinely ethical. Few have thought about the
counterfeits of ethical sentiment and judgment or have thought through a coherent ethical perspective
in light of the complexities and pitfalls of ethical reasoning. As a result, everyday ethical judgments are
often an unconscious mixture of genuine and counterfeit ethics, of ethical insight on the one hand and
prejudice and hypocrisy on the other—each in a web of beliefs that seem to the believer to be selfevidently true.
Inadvertently, we pass on to our children and students our own ethical blindness, ethical distortions,
and closed-mindedness. As a result, many who trumpet most loudly for ethics to be taught in the
schools merely want students to adopt their own beliefs and perspectives, however flawed those beliefs
and perspectives might be. They take themselves to have The Truth in their pockets. They take their
erspectives might be. They take themselves to have The Truth in their pockets. They take their
perspective to be exemplary of all ethical truths. What these same people fear most is someone else’s
ethical perspective taught as the truth: conservatives afraid of liberals being in charge, liberals fearful of
conservatives, theists of nontheists, nontheists of theists, and so on.
All of these fears are justified. People—except in the most rare and exceptional cases—have a strong
tendency to confuse what they believe with the truth. “It’s true because I believe it” is, as we have
already emphasized, a deep subconscious mindset in most of us. Our beliefs simply feel like The Truth.
They appear to the mind as the truth. In the “normal” human mind, it is always the others who do evil,
are deceived, self-interested, closed-minded—never us. Thus, instead of cultivating genuine ethical
principles in students, teachers often unknowingly indoctrinate them, systematically rewarding students
for expressing the beliefs and perspectives the teachers themselves hold. To this extent,
they indoctrinate rather than educate students.
14.1 Think for Yourself: DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN INDOCTRINATION
AND EDUCATION
As a person interested in developing your thinking, you must clearly distinguish between
indoctrination and education. These two concepts are often confused. Using a good dictionary as your
reference, complete the following statements (you may want to look up these words in more than
one dictionary for a comprehensive understanding of these terms).
1. According to the dictionary, the meaning of the word indoctrination that contrasts
with the meaning of education is . . .
• 2. According to the dictionary, the most fundamental meaning of the
word education that contrasts with the meaning of indoctrination is . . .
• 3. The main difference between education and indoctrination, therefore, is . . .
Once you feel reasonably clear about the essential differences between these terms, think about your
previous schooling and figure out the extent to which you think you have been indoctrinated (in
contrast to having been educated). Complete these statements:
•
•
•
1. As a student, I believe I have been mainly (educated or indoctrinated). My reasons
for concluding this are . . .
2. For example . . .
THE FUNDAMENTALS OF ETHICAL REASONING
To become skilled in any domain of reasoning, we must understand the principles that define that
domain. To be skilled in mathematical reasoning, we must understand fundamental mathematical
principles. To be skilled in scientific reasoning, we must understand fundamental scientific principles
(principles of physics, of chemistry, of astronomy, and so on). In like manner, to be skilled in ethical
reasoning, we must understand fundamental ethical principles. Good-heartedness is not enough. We
must be well grounded in fundamental ethical concepts and principles. Principles are at the heart of
ethical reasoning.
People thinking through an ethical issue must be able to identify the ethical principles relevant to the
specific ethical situation. They also must muster the intellectual skills required to apply those principles
fairly to the relevant case or situation. Ethical principles alone, however, do not settle ethical questions.
For example, ethical principles sometimes can be applied differently in cases that are ethically complex.
Consider, for instance, the question: Should the United States maintain relations with countries that
violate human rights? The most important ethical concepts relevant to this question are justice and
integrity, yet matters of practicality and effectiveness clearly must be considered as well. Justice and
integrity would seem to require cutting off relations with any country that violates fundamental human
rights. But is isolating and confronting these countries the most effective way to achieve these high
ethical ends? Wh…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment