A634.4.3.RB - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Affirmative action is a very delicate and complex piece of a multi-cultural puzzle. There states that continue to use affirmative action policies and others that have eradicated their programs both claiming victory in the name of true equality.

Encyclopedia Britannica (2020) defines Affirmative action, in the United States, as "an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and for women".  Affirmative action is meant to remedy centuries of social, racial, and economic oppression. After reading the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit and several corresponding articles, I am undecided on if it is ethical. While reading Chapter 5 and 6 (LaFollette, 2007), I mentally compared affirmative action to preparing for a race. Say two individuals were to participate in a long-distance race (or any sport).  Let's imagine Runner 1 has never trained for a run/race, he has never seen a track and does not have proper running gear.  Whereas Runner 2 has been prepped by trainers, physicians and coaches.  Runner 2 has the privilege and opportunity to research and buy the best running shoes and gear.  Additionally, Runner 2 has been training for months or years for this race.  Obviously, Runner 1 is at an immediate disadvantage.  I see affirmative action as giving Runner 1 a place at the starting line with the right gear and maybe a map.  It does not guarantee his success, but at least provides more of an opportunity than he had previously.  Ethicist Richard Wasserstrom states, "These programs justifiably do care about the race of applicants because such programs can and do play a constructive role in helping to dismantle the stubbornly entrenched system of unjust, black, racial disadvantage that is all too shamefully still operative in the United States today" (Santa Clara University, 1992). This simplistic comparison would lead one to believe Affirmative action is ethical. 

Affirmative action was meant to help give equal opportunity to minorities, but it is now causing a mismatch between people and opportunities.  "Racial preference policies do not account for the complexities of poverty nor issues of self-confidence once on campus in an entirely different community from the one they came from." (Upcounsel, n.d.)  Despite giving minorities a place at the starting line, affirmative action does not account for or excuse the disadvantage that has already occurred.  Shelby Steele, a scholar known nationally for his articulate opposition to affirmative action argues, "After 25 years of affirmative action, black Americans have declined on almost every socioeconomic measure. What we need is development!" (Santa Clara University, 1992).  In this context, affirmative action is condoning the fact that African Americans (or any minority) were not afforded the same opportunities growing up as most.  Rather than fixing the root cause, these policies are simply putting a "band-aid" on the situation and suggesting they are fixing the problem.  

As I look at the pros and cons of affirmative action, I am still not able to answer the question if affirmative action is ethical. On one hand I believe it is ethical because it allows people who were mistreated for years a stepping stool to a better life. On the other hand, that stepping stool may have a wobbly leg and be putting individuals at more of a disadvantage than intended.  Yes, racism does exist and may never be completely eradicated, but we are continuing to improve as a society.  I believe one way to continue improving is by having these discussions and critical thinking exercises.  

References:
Lafollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
Santa Clara University. (1992). The Ethics of Affirmative Action. Retrieved June 25, 2020, from https://www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v5n2/action.html
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2020, May 18). Affirmative action. Retrieved June 26, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action
Upcounsel. (n.d.). Affirmative Action Laws: Everything You Need to Know. Retrieved June 26, 2020, from https://www.upcounsel.com/affirmative-action-laws

A634.3.4.RB - The Harder They Fall

Using concepts from the Kramer (2003) article as a baseline, share your insights on dilemmas that happen in:

• in society
• at work
• and in your life

The article The Harder They Fall by Roderick Kramer was insightful and made me reevaluate my leadership. Kramer's article attempts to differentiate between those leaders who can stay in power peacefully versus those who crash and burn. "Why do so many individuals fall prey to stunning bouts of folly once they seize power?"(Kramer, 2003, p. 60). This may be naïve, but I feel most of us at work, in society and life, want to do good things and strive to better. However, if that is true, how do we continually have leaders, parents, teachers, coaches and public servants making unethical decisions such as lying, stealing, cheating and embezzling?

When I read about the executive, Marjorie Peel in Kramer’s article, in many ways I could relate with her; being a charismatic student and later was laser focused on her career. The story discusses how Peel was “generous with praise, quick to recognize others’ achievements” – yet as she ascended the corporate ladder, she “became more demanding of her subordinates and devoted little time to mentoring them.” While reading I was once again reminded about Lee Ellis’ declaration that even the strongest leaders in history have fallen short. "Even with a commitment to ethical and moral values and strong self-discipline, we can still get off track in our integrity and honor – no one is perfect” (Ellis, 2016, p.3). What I believe was missing in Peel’s (and most other leader’s) life and leadership was accountability.

Accountability is taking initiative with thoughtful, strategic follow-through. (Bregman, 2016) Without accountability, no one will learn from mistakes and trust (in leadership and the organization) will diminish. "When employees (and let’s be fair, managers do this too) don’t hold themselves responsible for their actions, it prevents anyone from learning from them" (Pomeroy, 2015, para 4). Seeing that accountability is a continual issue in our society, forces me to look inward.

As a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO) holding a key position in my organization, I reflected on implications of accountability from an individual perspective. Personally, I have a responsibility to encourage leadership and hold myself and others accountable. Airmen, through self-discipline, adhere to high standards and we hold our fellow Airmen accountable to follow our standards (2012). If I do not have personal accountability, I cannot lead by example nor can I effectively hold others accountable for their actions. One of the best ways of holding myself accountable at work is asking supervisors, subordinates and peers for candid feedback. This past week I asked for a list of personnel with overdue training. My training monitor gave me a copy and posted a different one on our training board. Upon doing so he stated, “don’t worry, I took your name off the one I posted”. I immediately told him to repost it. Just I hold my Airmen and NCOs accountable, I need accountability. Moreover, I believe in transparency. If I am not meeting the standard, I will hold myself to the same consequences as I enforce.

At home, my husband and I have candid conversations about life, leadership, parenting and other tough topics. He has been my sounding board for almost as long as I've known him. I trust his decision-making and guidance. Bryan is very straight-forward and strong-willed, I would also say he is a critical thinker. I often turn to him for support, direction, and feedback. We both work aircraft maintenance and until recently have worked in the same sections. Therefore, he knows what I deal with on a day-to-day basis and understands my situations. I am very open to feedback, but I know it's hard for most people to give it. Bryan doesn't have that problem. He listens to me and without bias, gives open and honest feedback on my leadership struggles.  Through his feedback, an open mind, and accountability I improve my leadership abilities and strengthen my values.

References: 
Ellis, L. (2016). Engage with honor: Building a culture of courageous accountability. Cumming, GA: FreedomnStar Media.
Roderick M Kramer. (2003). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review., 81(10).
Air Force culture: Air Force standards. (2012). Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force.
Bregman, P. (2016, March 09). The Right Way to Hold People Accountable. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from https://hbr.org/2016/01/the-right-way-to-hold-people-accountable
Pomeroy, S. (2015, October 06). Why Accountability in the Workplace Matters. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from https://talentculture.com/why-accountability-in-the-workplace-matters/

Reflection Blog Guidelines

Guidelines

When you write your blogs for this program, use a first-person perspective and style. Your finished blogs should be at least 500 words long and free of spelling and grammar errors. Answer the prompt provided, but do not simply list and answer the prompts. Instead, write your blog, incorporating your thoughts into your reflection. Make certain to incorporate your own experiences into your reflection. Reflection blogs are meant to give you the opportunity to think about the material in a different way. APA format and references are not required for reflection blogs.

For these assignments, you will need to submit the link/url to your blog. If you are already blogging, you may use your tool of choice for the reflection blog assignments. If you are new to blogging, you are encouraged to use the Canvas ePortfolio feature to create your blog postings.

Important: It is best if you organize your entries as one ePortfolio/Blogsite for the entire program with a delineation for each course. Each assignment should be a blog entry. It is recommended that you make your blog public. If you choose to keep it private, follow the instructions carefully for sharing a private ePortfolio so that your instructor is able to access your blog.

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

In Chapter 2, A Tale of Two Theories, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories. Do you tend to lean toward being a consequentialist? Deontologist?

The theory of consequentialism, as detailed by LaFollette (2007), is founded in its “claim that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (p. 23). In contrast, deontologists claim that our moral obligations – whatever they are – are defined by the rules, partly independently of consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 24). I interpret this to simply mean deontologists do not allow any exceptions to the rules, where consequentialists do.

While reading this week’s chapters, my husband was watching the movie, The Cabin in the Woods. The end of the movie suggests that perhaps it's better to let humans go extinct rather than commit murder, an anti-consequentialist position. After some discussion with my husband we agreed that another great movie dealing with consequentialism is Gone Baby, a disturbing story where two detectives search for a missing child following a child abduction. Throughout the movie, there are several dilemmas where the main star, Casey Affleck, must weigh moral high grounds or “ends-justify-the-means” decision.

My Christian upbringing taught me that killing is bad. However, I am in the military and work on the world’s premier nuclear bomber B-2 aircraft which is solely designed to kill others (or prevent it through strategic deterrence). I still believe killing is bad and that we should be ethical out of duty and moral obligation. Yet, consequences need to be considered regarding ethics.

In last week’s blog, I was asked to discuss and decide my actions during The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One. When faced with a situation to let five kids get run over with a train, I stated I would choose to let one child die rather than five. As humans, it is our ethical duty to save as many lives as possible in any given situation. With limited options and information, I would act in a way that produces the best consequences, thus consequentialism.

So, which theory is correct? The answer is both and neither. Like many examples in life, the solution lies somewhere in between. After understanding both theories, I feel I tend to lean towards being a consequentialist. I believe circumstances and consequences matter and in order to make the best decisions with the most effective and ethical outcomes one must practice critical thinking. Elder & Paul (2013) state thinking tells us what to believe, what is important, what is true as well as everything we know, believe, want, fear, and hope for. "All thinking has an internal dynamic. It leads somewhere and, when acted upon, has consequences. You can't be a critical thinker if you are insensitive to the many implications inherent in your thinking." (Elder & Paul, 201, p. 87). Much like critical thinkers consider the Elements of Thought, consequentialists must consider and specify three dimensions:

- Which consequences?

- How much do they count?

- How do they count?

References: 

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2013). 30 Days to Better Thinking and Better Living Through Critical Thinking: A Guide for Improving Every Aspect of Your Life. London: Prentice-Hall.
Gone Baby Gone. (2007, October 19). Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452623/

Lafollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.

A634.1.5.RB - The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

How then Shall We Live? --Leo Tolstoy

How can we make effective and ethical decisions if we never have all the information?  I often remind myself and my team to make a decision, if it's right- great; if  it's wrong- we will adjust course and move on.  However, there are times in life where we may be faced with impossible decisions.  How shall we handle those occasions when none of the choices are attractive?  You decide, act and trust that you made the right choice.  

Scenario 1: A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch? 

Yes.  With the given information, I assume the situation implies that your choice will end in the death of five children, or one.  I would choose the death of one child, while saving five others.  Without the full understanding of the situation I assume there are no other choices.  However, if given choices such as to stop the train, yell to warn the children or even to die in their place - the situation, decision and consequences could change.  

Scenario 2: You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Yes, I would push him.  Once again there is no right or wrong answer and this situation will go against my moral and ethical belief and in my view this would be murder. Once again, I would choose the lives of the five children over an elderly man.  

Scenario 3: The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children? 

No, I would choose to save my child over the five other children.  That is a blunt and dramatic statement but I could not bear to knowingly be the cause of my child's death.  

These are impossible situations and ones I pray I will never encounter. As humans, it is our ethical duty to save as many lives as possible in any given situation. In contrast, the value of life is immeasurable and it should not be up to us to decide who lives or dies.

During World War II, General LeMay had the responsibility to decide, did he want to kill Japanese or would he rather have Americans killed? General LeMay was faced with the ethical dilemma, use new firebomb tactics and kill thousands of Japanese or risk an invasion of Japan and probably cost a half a million American lives. He devised a plan to use incendiary bombs that would create massive fires thus destroying Japan’s capacity to wage war. He interpreted and analyzed the situation, weighing the fact that his decision had the potential to kill thousands of innocent civilians. His first duty was to protect and save as many Americans as possible and he knew if he didn’t get results there would undoubtedly be a Japanese invasion. This was not a decision made lightly. General LeMay had to think critically about all aspects of his decision, the consequences and potential second and third order effects. However, he decided to apply the critical thinking trait of Intellectual Courage which is connected with the ability to consider ideas seen as absurd or different. He addressed whether to use these weapons and tactics although, according to LeMay – The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay it was widely known he preferred high explosive ordinance and different tactics. Not only was this decision against the status quo at the time, but it could be perceived as excessive use of force. Nevertheless, he made the call and according to atomicheritage.com, on March 10, 1945 300 B-29s started the firebombing campaign. Although, he was ultimately responsible for killing 100,000 Japanese he also saved thousands of Americans from dying during a Japanese invasion.

While leaders are not all faced with life and death decisions, there are still everyday ethical dilemmas that are struggled with. One must decide, act and trust that they made the right choice.

References:

Kozak, W. (2011). LeMay: the life and wars of General Curtis LeMay. Washington, D.C.: Regenery History.