Texas Has the Best Textbooks in the Country. Or do we?

27 02 2010

My good friend Nancy W from Little Rock Ark wrote me the other day with a concern she has with State Board of Education of Texas.  You might ask why does someone in Arkansas care about the SBOE?  The reason is that the SBOE of Texas is the state that about 46 or 47 states in the US follow when it comes to deciding on school books for their schools.  So, don’t we make good book choices?  Not according to many citizens and school officials.  Texas has become the battlefield for issues revolving around science and creationism and more recently over what is being included in history and government books as it pertains to references to the founding fathers creating a Christian nation.  According to many, this is first of all not true and trying create the impression that that this misrepresentation is a clear breach of the “wall of separation between Church and state” that Thomas Jefferson spoke about.  The current issue is whether the United States was conceived as a Christian nation.  Conservatives argue that it was.   Others would say that the founding fathers even though religious espoused the idea that God was not necessarily a Christian God.  Consider the words of the Declaration of Independence that states, “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…..that all men are endowed by their Creator….  This asserts that God has a hand in the affairs of men but that is more a deist conception of God, rather than a Trinitarian God.

 A good book to give a balanced assessment of religion in the creation of the United States is Jon Mecham’s book American Gospel.  Here are several quotes attributed to the founders. (2006)

 “Writing to a Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I., in 1790, President Washington assured his Jewish countrymen that America “gives…bigotry no sanction.”  In a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli initiated by Washington, completed by John Adams, and ratified by the senate in 1797, the Founders declared that, “ the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” p. 19

 Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1790:“ I believe in one God, creator of the universe.  That he governs it by his Providence.  That he ought to be worshiped.  That the most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children.  That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.  These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them.

 As to Jesus of Nazareth…I think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, an I have…some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.” P.2

 “On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles,” he [Jefferson] said, “ all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning, and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”  P. 29

 “I never told my religion nor scrutinized that of another,” Jefferson wrote. “I never attempted to make a convert, nor wish to changer another’s creed.  I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives…” “ For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read,” Jefferson said.  “By the same test the world must judge me.” P.35

 The most controversial appointee running for re-election Don McLeroy and his opponent Thomas Ratliff are so far down the Republican primary ballot they’re lost in the myriad of judges, representative and straw votes that it’ll be difficult to find them, much less know the issues involved.

 I’m sorry Nancy, but anyway, here’s your comment it its entirety.

 I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith.  For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff.  I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith.  For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff.


Comments : 8 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 1, ethics

The Ethics of I’ll Never See You Again

21 02 2010

 An alternative to the Prisoner’s Dilemma game is a cooperation game with a set number of rounds with a finite final round that the players know about.   The rule is that you cooperate every round until the last round and then defect.  Therefore the one who defects on the last round is the winner.  The reasoning goes that if both players know when the last round is going to be, then they will both defect prior to the last round, which will change the whole dynamics of the game and the way they cooperate in the earlier rounds.  Basically, cooperation ceases and people revert to more pragmatic strategies.  But is it true that if we know when the last round is that we will take advantage of the situation and be unethical in our behavior.  If we can get away with something, will we do it?  I’ll give you two examples of the I’ll never see you again scenario.

 Several years ago, a friend of mine and I were traveling to Austin when we were caught in a terrible thunder storm.  I turned my windshield wipers up to full capacity.  As they were whipping around, the blade on my side of the car came loss and started flopping around to where I couldn’t see where I was going.  I finally was able to get to a small town off the highway and found a shade tree mechanics shop.  The mechanic looked at the blade, got a small wrench and tightened a small screw that had been holding the blade in place.  I asked how much I owed him and since he wasn’t the boss, he called someone and came back and told me it would be $25.  The whole operation took less than five minutes.  I thought that was terribly exorbitant but since I needed to get back on the road I didn’t argue about the price, paid it and went on my way.  But I wondered to myself and my friend what it would have cost someone who lived in the town, if in fact they would be charged.

 The other example had a completely different outcome.  I was coming back from a boating outing with my two young sons.  I had recently bought a very old boat and trailer and hooked it up to new motor.  At the time I bought the boat I had thought what a great bargain it was.  That was not to be the case.  As I was driving down the highway, I happened to look in my side mirror and noticed that there was a wobble in the tire on the trailer.  I stopped to inspect it and found that the lugs had eaten away the wheel rim and the wheel was dangerously close to allowing the tire to fall off. It was Sunday afternoon and I was out in the middle of no where with my pre-teen sons.  What was I to do?  I was even considering just leaving the boat, trailer, and new motor and hoping I could come back the next day and retrieve something.  As I stood there considering my limited options an old pickup truck pulled behind my boat and an old man got out.  He came up, we had a short conversation and he said that he would go home and bring some very large washers that he had and we could  jerry rig the wheels to where I could limp home.  He left, and after about an hour and I was beginning to think he’d decided not to come back, I saw the old pickup emerging in the distance.  We spent a few minutes putting the washers in place.  I didn’t have much cash on me but I offered him what I had and he said,  “no, cudn’t accept nothin mister. All I got to say is that if you ever see me on the road broke down, just stop and do the same.”  Even today as I think about his act of kindness it brings tears to my eyes. I’ve never seen him again and I’m always too busy or too afraid to help someone broken down on the road, but maybe in some other ways, I can just pass his kindness forward. 

 It makes me reflect that the game that calls us into caring relationships is never over, even when we’ll never see someone again.  Just pass it forward.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : ethics

Undercover Boss

14 02 2010

Undercover Boss After the Super Bowl game last week, I watched the new show, Undercover Boss. The COO of Waste Management was that week’s undercover boss and he spent the week working in the field doing what his line employees did. He picked up trash at the dump, he went on a garbage run, and he sucked out port-a-potties. As a result of this experience he had an epiphany about his company’s operations. The employees did not know that he was the COO of the company. He was just a prospective new hire that the company was trying out. Among the things he learned was that for every minute an employee was late they were docked two minutes. Women drivers had to urinate in a can just like the male truck drivers and employees were reprimanded if they did not finish their runs on time. As a result of this experience he called in his staff and told them of his findings and told them that there were changes that needed to be made. Many of those changes were the result of unilateral policies that he had enacted to get better production. In the TV presentation we didn’t see much interaction between him and his staff. It was pretty much another form of unilateral action. Most of the staff seemed uneasy being in the meeting and I wondered what they were thinking being put on the spot for TV. Work place policies can involve ethics. There’s been a lot of progress on accommodation of persons with disabilities in the work place. But what of the female driver as well as the male drivers who had to urinate in a can? When a person works for a company, they usually are an employee at will. They don’t have much to say about working conditions. That’s pretty well spelled out by the employer. The goal of the COO of Waste Management was to maintain and/or increase productivity. We don’t know how those work rules were developed but we saw from the show that it appeared that it was determined from above without a lot of input from the rank and file. Many companies have found that listening to other voices can improve productivity because employees have a say in what happens. Dr. Edward Deming developed the idea of quality circles that used employees to identify problems in the production cycle and to come up with solutions to those problems. This methodology was first used in 1962 by Nippon Wireless and Telegraph and later became a mainstay of Japanese industry. Deming’s methodology revolutionized industry in Japan. It was much later that American companies began to use the system; however not with some resistance. Many American managers felt that it would not work with American workers because it was believed that American workers did not share the same loyalty to authority and enterprise that Japanese workers exhibited. But over time, many American companies have decided that giving workers the opportunity to buy into changing the system and being able to see financial benefits not only to the company but to them, has had positive results. But is this really about ethics? In many cases it is. Ethical behavior is seldom unilateral. The ethics that we abide by are most often covenantal and are seen by all parties involved as important to the well being and fairness of the system. Over time, ethics tend to seek a level of workability and if not, the system becomes dysfunctional and may even cease to exist. If people don’t believe in the ethical standards that are set out as being the accepted norm and that are important for the viability of the organization, they will find ways to circumvent those standards. And that circumvention can be from top to bottom in the organization. So, the question that I pose to you is what has been your experience of ethical standards in organizations that you have been a part? Have they been unilaterally decreed and if so what was the effect on how well they worked? Was there any effort to create a situation where there was buy in and input from the parties involved? If you were in a position to develop ethical standards for an organization that you were a part, how would you go about doing it? Please make comments below, so others may see your ideas expressed. What you have to say is important to the conversation.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : 1

Tit for Tat Ethics

11 02 2010

 

In past posts, we have considered factors influencing ethics without much consideration of the structures that effect person’s responses to those behaviors.  This post deals with one way of responding to another person or institutions behavior.  Game theorist Robert Axelrod set up a competition to see what strategy would be most successful in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma game (remember the prisoner’s dilemma).  Solutions were submitted by a large number of competitors with the object being to see who would be most successful.  Two hundred rounds of the game were played with the winning strategy and surprisingly simple solution being Tit for Tat.  The strategy was as follows:

In the first round, one player cooperated and after that did whatever the other player did the previous round.  In other words, if the other player cooperated, player one cooperated.  If player two defected, then player one responded in a like manner.  What’s fascinating is that Tit for Tat never won a round.  The best it ever did was a tie, but over two hundred iterations, it had the best score. 

The features that make the game work is that it is “nice because the player using it never betrays first.  It is provokable in that it quickly and reliably punishes the other player’s betrayal.  It is forgivable because it can quickly return to cooperation even after defection and it is straightforward because it is simple enough that other players see that cooperation is the best choice.”  ( Games People Play, The Teaching Company, 2008)

Whether this system is workable in all situations in real life is debatable but I think there are situations that it applies.  Remember our discussion about putting children in timeout and parents saying that it didn’t work.  The fact was that in most of those situations parents were inconsistent in carrying out of consequences and threats.  In foreign relations we see that with dictators and demagogues it is difficult to deal with them if they see that when they push against other nations and those nations acquiesce to their pushing the belligerent nation pushes even more until either they get what they want or someone places serious sanctions against them.  North Korea and Iran are current examples of this.  And we saw this same response with Hitler in WWII.  On the other hand, we have seen that Israel has taken a very aggressive posture towards aggression towards it and have used the Tit for Tat strategy very effectively.  You attack us and we will immediately retaliate.  On the other hand they have not always done a very good job with their own citizens as it pertains to illegal building of settlements on the West Bank. 

For individual Christians who believe in forgiveness Tit for Tat may seem severe.  We believe that everyone should be given another chance and that is as it should be.  But we also know that in both the old and new testament there was the concept of consequences and even though forgiveness may flow out of a broken relationship, consequences still occur.  So the question that I ask you, the reader, to consider and comment on are:

  1. How do you see Tit for Tat working or not working?
  2. What situations might you use Tit for Tat in your own relationships?
  3. What better ways might you engage persons that you feel have broken ethical covenant?

Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Ethical Tipping Points

7 02 2010

                                     

Early in my business career my brother and I were commercial real estate developers.  As in all phases of life, there were lessons that we learned.  When you build a project such as an apartment project you go through a procedure to get it up and running.  You have the plans drawn, you find financing, make a cost estimate and then buy out the project.  In the years that we were building, Houston was in a tremendous building boom that often created a shortage of both materials and labor.  This latter shortage was the one that was most problematic.  The number of sub contractors available to bid on projects was limited even as we worked to bring the project in at the projected cost.  And therein lay the problem.  We often had to employ subs that we had never worked with and knew little about.  In many cases, subs were somewhat itinerate in nature so we couldn’t do much of a check on them.  At any rate, we would contract with them on an agreed price and proceed with the construction.  But then the next shoe would drop.  A few days into the subs work he would come back in and state that he was losing his “ass” on the job and needed to have more money.  Our position was that he had made a deal and that we were going to stick with the agreement.  After grumbling some, he would go off with us thinking that was the end of the issue.  However, within a few days he and his crew would not show up.  This created a problem with everyone else who depended on him to be at a certain point in the project.  This made them angry and the whole project would slow, sometimes to a snails pace.  Because we were financing the construction, it meant that every extra day that it took to complete the job cost us interest, not to mention pushing back the opening date of the project.  Then we would send out compliance letters stating that if the sub did not staff the job adequately, that we would cancel the contract and withhold his retainage.  After all, we had our ten page contract with him that gave us all sorts of power.  We generally did not have to do this, in as much as that would delay the project more, while we went to court and looked for a replacement sub.  So, we muddled through until completion.  Unfortunately this scenario was not that uncommon, not just with us but with other contractors. 

            One day, I was having lunch with a friend of mine who was one of the largest and most successful apartment builders in Houston.  He had built and owned over 5000 units in the Houston area.  He was noted for being able to begin moving tenants into one of his large new projects within ninety days.  This was almost unheard of and I asked him how he was able to get that kind of production.  He allowed that he had good subs.  So, how do you get and keep good subs I asked?  His answer was simple.  He said that he did a lot of work, but more importantly he paid them well and expected them to be on the job and to do good work.  He stated that the time saved by being able to start moving tenants in quickly and being able to start getting cash flow and stopping the interest clock more than made up for the extra cost of labor.  

            As I reflect on this now, I realize that in addition to paying more, he also had a long standing relationship with these subs.  He had worked with them for a number of years and not only did they work well with him but they also had a relationship with one another.  There was a mutual trust between them.  I’m sure they had a written contract and did the paper work required by the lenders and the legal statutes.  But having iron clad contracts doesn’t always get the job done.  My friend and his subs had made a covenant that went beyond the written documents. 

It’s also about ethics and trust.  In my case the ethical questions were two sided.  From my side, the ethics question was, is it ethical to squeeze the sub to where he couldn’t make a profit?  And from his standpoint, was it ethical for him to come back and try and play the “poor me” game.  Looking back on those incidents, I’m not sure what I would do today.  But I do know that sometimes ethics are two sided and that parties play destructive games that impede the resolution of problems.  Additionally, there are tipping points to ethical situations.  There are degrees of ethics and we don’t always know the boundaries associated with decisions.  Even if one party has the power to dictate to another party is it ethical and does it make sense?  I’ve been on both sides of these kinds of contractual issues and I know that at times it’s important to change the rules a bit in order to move forward. 

Currently, our country is faced with the sub-prime mortgage crisis.  Homeowners are defaulting and giving back their homes by the hundreds of thousands.  And our politicians and pundits play the blame game.  Congress is at fault, the lenders are at fault, or the homebuyer is at fault.    But, some loans are being renegotiated in order to help the home buyer but to me even more importantly to keep someone in the home to keep it from deteriorating and losing more value and effecting the surrounding neighborhood.  That’s a pay off for the lender.  The point being in these two scenarios is that ethics are not always black and white.  Situations change and rigid ethics don’t get the job done.  Ethics are also about the self interest of the parties.  Just because one party has the power over the other does it make it right to wield that power or does it make more sense to find an answer that creates a win-win situation?


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : ethics

Ethics of the Expedient

1 02 2010

A friend and I were discussing ethics and he told me a story of when he was in high school.  He was on the track team and one day after practice the boys on the track team found that the Coke machine was broken and that they were able to get Cokes out of the machine without paying.  My friend along with a lot of the other track team members took Cokes.  The next day the track coach found out about the incident and questioned all the boys as to whether they had taken Cokes.  My friend was the only one to admit to taking a Coke.  As a result of his confession he was kicked off the team for the rest of the year.  As far as he remembers, he was the only one that was disciplined.  Was this just?  Should he have kept his mouth shut?  Was there another way for the coach to handle the issue?

In game theory, there is a classic game called the Prisoners Dilemma.  The scenario is as follows:

Two thieves are believed to have robbed.  They are split up into separate rooms and given the chance to confess.  The specified consequences are as follows.  If one confesses and the other doesn’t the one that confesses gets off for his testimony while the other gets ten years.  If both confess they each get a five year sentence.  If neither confesses they get a one year sentence for possession of fire arms.  It would seem that confessing would be the desired outcome except that he doesn’t know whether the other thief is confessing or not confessing. 

 In this scenario, it would be in both thieves self interest not to confess, even though they neither one know what the other will do.  If they both do not confess, they will only receive a one year sentence.  What my friend experienced is a variation of the Prisoners Dilemma.  Unfortunately for him, he didn’t know what the consequences of a confession meant and he did not tell on others that he knew had also taken Cokes.  He bore the whole consequence.  What do you think would have happened to him and the track team if he had not confessed and no one else had confessed?   My guess is that it would have resulted in a much lesser consequence for the whole team.  Would the track coach have suspended the whole team for the season?  I doubt it.  Maybe harder workouts and some form of group consequences, but not as severe as what my friend experienced.  In a sense he became the scapegoat.  He did what he thought was right.  I imagine that’s what he was taught. 

 In the last few years we’ve seen business persons, professionals, clergy and politicians go to jail for breaking laws or acting unethically.   This is as it should be.  But as a result of the actions of a few, those who are innocent are also implicated by association.  New laws and regulations get passed or implemented to ensure that future infractions will be avoided.  Intuitively though we know that those who will be unethical and unlawful will find ways to circumvent the law and go on doing whatever they deem to be in their interest. 

 The Prisoners Dilemma and other game theory games are based upon rational and mathematical constructs rather than what’s ethical or moral.  Ethics and morals sometimes come into play in game theory but the games tend to be independently determined only by logic, reason, and mathematics.  It brings to mind the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.  He could have probably avoided crucifixion by “going over the hill”, so to speak which was a theme in the book and movie, The Last Temptation of Christ.  Not only could he have avoided death, but he might have even been able to continue his ministry in some minor way.  No matter what your belief is concerning the atonement, most Christians would agree that what happened on Calvary and at the tomb is a cornerstone of what we believe.  The Romans and the Pharisees probably believed that by killing Jesus, this new radical movement would end.  After all, all his disciples had deserted.  Jesus bore the burden of death and defeat but showed us the power of God in the resurrection.  And for centuries we have embraced this God of new beginnings and hope.  We believe that the Kingdom exists both now and in the future.

            In this hope and belief, we also realize that we are sometimes called to pick up our cross too, not just because we want to be martyrs but because that’s a price of God’s freedom.  I don’t know the deeper motivation of my friend and the Coke machine incident. Whether it made an impact on his team mates, we’ll never know.  But even if they thought he was a chump is not important.  What is important is that he did what was right and suffered the consequences for the whole team, even when they abandoned him.  As Christians, we’re called to risk doing what is right in spite of the consequences.  That’s not always an easy thing to do, when we don’t know whether following ethical principles will make any difference.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : 1


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.