Analyzing Criminal Justice Ethics: Professor's Preferential Treatment to a Student Athlete, Study notes of Introduction to Sociology

Download Analyzing Criminal Justice Ethics: Professor's Preferential Treatment to a Student Athlete and more Study notes Introduction to Sociology in PDF only on Docsity! CRIMINAL JUSTICE ETHICS HANDOUT #2 For purposes of analyzing scenarios in this class, I've found it beneficial to give students the basics of "how to do it". Below is the format and criteria you'll be using when working on the scenarios. Basic discussion of ideals, obligations, and consequences is found in Ruggiero, Chs. 7-10; Additional discussion is found in Ch. 11. A BRIEF SCENARIO: I.M. Tough is a football player at the University of Michigan. He is enrolled in a SOC 100 class with Professor Smith, who is known to favor student athletes in his grading. Prof. Jones has a class policy that quizzes can't be made up. Tough, however, misses several of the quizzes due to road games. At the end of the term, Smith allows I.M. Tough to make up the missed quizzes, but does not allow others to do so. Did Smith act ethically? I. FACTS: Think of this as "the bottom line" in terms of the scenario. You should ask yourself questions like "Who did what to whom?" "Who are the major "players" in the scenario?" "What decision(s) were made?", etc. In general, the facts will point to what is the ethical issue(s) in the case. What are the facts from the above scenario?: A professor gave preferential treatment to a student athlete. Why are these the facts? Because this is the "bottom line" of what happened: Tough, the football player, was allowed to violate a course policy in making up the quizzes. This resulted in preferential treatment for Tough over other students who were not allowed to make up the quizzes. II. DETAILS: Think of these as circumstances relevant to the scenario. These help you identify the major figures in the scenario, what happened to them, their possible motivations, how the major figures resolved similar situations in the past, potential ideals involved in the case, and so on. NOTE: Details are NOT the facts of the scenario, but can be used to identify the facts. For example, in the previous case, the details would be as follows: (1) I.M. Tough is a football player enrolled in a SOC 100 class; (2) Professor Smith is teaching the class (3) Smith is known to favor athletes in his classes; (4) Smith has a policy that quizzes can't be made up; (5) Tough misses several quizzes due to road games; (6) Smith allows Tough to make up the quizzes. III. ISSUE: This identifies the "moral dilemma" in the case. The issue in the scenario is simply a restatement of the facts in the form of a question, adding the words “Is [Was] it ethical . . .” Most of the time, you can identify the issue in the case by looking at the facts. NOTE: The issue in the case is NOT the question I ask you in the exercise (e.g. Was Prof. Smith's behavior ethical?). In the above example, the issue would be as follows: Is it ethical for a professor to give preferential treatment to a student athlete? IV. IDEALS (See: Ruggiero, Chs. 7,9): These are abstract notions of “goodness” or “rightness” that we as individuals and as a society aspire to achieve (e.g., justice, fairness, compassion, etc.). In your exercises, you'll be asked to identify and briefly discuss a) the relevant ideals in the case and b) why these ideals are relevant (NOTE: Remember that ideals are "abstract" ends, ultimate goals, or notions of excellence, that we as individuals or as a society are striving to achieve). V. OBLIGATIONS (See: Ruggiero, Chs.7,8). Recall that obligations are regulations on our behavior or demands to do or not do something. In your analysis, you'll identify and briefly describe the obligations of the party who is the focal point of the scenario. NOTE: In all the situations we'll examine, there will be at least one other person people involved besides the main party; sometimes there'll be more. REGARDLESS of how many individuals are involved in the case, your analysis must consider the obligations owed by the main party to all of the other parties. Also, recall that obligations revolve around personal, contractual, marital, professional, friendship (etc.) relationships. Your job is to identify both the type of obligation (e.g., friendship) and describe the nature of the obligation (e.g., not to reveal a secret). An example follows: ANALYZING OBLIGATIONS: V. OBLIGATIONS: A. PROFESSOR SMITH: 1. TO HIMSELF -- Smith has a personal obligation to be the best professor he can be -- Smith has a personal obligation to do his job to the best of his ability -- etc. 2. TO I.M. TOUGH -- Smith has a professional obligation to Tough to listen to his excuses -- Smith has a professional obligation to Tough to treat Tough fairly -- etc. 3. TO THE OTHER STUDENTS IN SOC 100 -- Smith has a professional obligation to treat all his students fairly -- Smith has a professional obligation to not show favoritism among his students 4. Etc. VI. CONSEQUENCES (Ruggiero, Chs. 7,10). In every situation, the main party in the scenario chooses a particular course of action; this action ultimately raises the “ethical issue” and has consequences for all of the parties in the scenario. The consequences must be considered as part of your analysis. Additionally, there are both positive and negative consequences for all of the parties because of the course of action chosen. Further, consequences are NOT certainties – they are possibilities (some of which are more likely to occur than others, but need to be considered nonetheless). In our scenario above, the facts are as follows: A professor gave preferential treatment to a student athlete. To analyze the consequences of this action, consider what are the possible positive and negative outcomes for each of the parties in the scenario. Using our example, you would set up this section of the analysis along the following lines: A. A professor gives preferential treatment to a student athlete. (Now, think: What are the possible positive and negative consequences of this for all of the parties?): 1. Prof. Smith Positive Negative -- Smith is probably being compassionate -- Smith may set a dangerous precedent with his actions -- Smith may feel good about his actions -- Smith may feel cynical toward students -- etc. -- etc. 2