The ethical dilemma we present here is real. We change only names and details to protect the privacy of individuals and/or organizations involved. All dilemmas in this column are “right vs. right” dilemmas in which either of two choices have clear ethical underpinnings. In particular, we use the ethical frameworks established by the Institute for Global Ethics, www.globalethics.org. If you have an ethical dilemma that you would like to share, please contact the editorial staff at Independent School ([email protected]).
The search committee has not had a lot of luck finding the right academic dean for Southwest Independent School. Committee members are getting tired of the process, if not discouraged. To their relief, a new candidate, Greg Davidson, applies — and looks like a wonderful fit. The committee must make haste to fill the position, and several members suggest that the committee’s process has been too rigorous and detailed, and that in the interest of time they should streamline it. Shelley McCurdy leads this charge. She is particularly enthusiastic about the new candidate because she has two children who will enter the upper school at Southwest in the next few years — and the candidate’s qualifications suggests he will ensure that her children are academically challenged and prepared for the very best colleges. In addition, McCurdy had volunteered to provide the campus tour for all candidates. On her tour with Davidson, she brings her oldest son along. When he gives the newest candidate the thumbs up afterward, that’s all McCurdy needs to feel adamant about hiring Davidson.
Meanwhile, George Torres, another search committee member, has been doing informal research of his own, outside of the committee process, since “streamlining” has meant more limited examination of the candidate’s references. In a conversation with three educator friends at a national conference, Torres floats Davidson’s name casually, but also explains the purpose for his question. All three warn against hiring Davidson. ”He looks good on paper,” one explains. ”But he’s ambitious, out of touch with educational trends, and difficult to work with. The only folks who will like him are the head of school and the trustees.”
Torres is disturbed by this information, of course. He had hoped for a win-win, in which any information gathered would square with the impressions and enthusiasm of other committee members. Instead, these warnings directly oppose the general view of the committee, and are not likely to be received well by McCurdy in particular. Torres hates to dampen the high spirits of the group, and he fears the label of “obstructionist” if he speaks up. On the other hand, this position is critical for the well-being of the school and the students he serves. If, in fact, Davidson is an expert at snowing those in positions of power, once he is in, it will be difficult to get him out.
Torres analyzes this dilemma according to two dominant paradigms. Through the “individual vs. community” lens, he sees the needs of the search committee pitted against the needs of the broader school community. If he stays quiet, he will make the committee happy, but possibly at the expense of the happiness of students and faculty. If he speaks up on behalf of this larger group, he’ll be forcing the committee to lengthen its revised process, making their lives more complicated. Additionally, the “short term vs. long term” paradigm sheds some light. If Torres defers to the majority right now, the committee will solve its immediate problem of making a decision, but there may be trouble ahead for the school. If he speaks up, however, he may be labeled a troublemaker or worse. And if Davidson is not hired, the school may never find out if Torres’s concerns were justified or not. In the long term, he will have to live with the consequences within the Southwest Independent community.
Solution
Torres has a decision to make, and he looks to three traditions in philosophy to think it through. He considers an ends-based approach. What would be the greatest good for the greatest number of people? Torres does not have a crystal ball — he doesn’t even know if what his colleagues told him is an accurate view of Davidson in other schools or just the perception of a few folks. Yet it seems to Torres that, either way, the greatest good is served by speaking up. If, in fact, the committee goes to further lengths to find out about Davidson — armed with questions informed by Torres’s concerns — confirmation of the candidate based on a more thorough process can only serve to boost everybody’s confidence in him.
Now Torres thinks about the more Kantian approach. A rule-based thinker might have difficulty teasing apart several conflicting guiding principles, none of which relies on the outcome (as does the ends-based approach) to determine the course of action. One rule-based thinker might use “honesty is the best policy” as a standard that would compel Torres to speak up. But another might use “defer to the majority,” or “never trust hearsay,” or even “give the benefit of the doubt” to guide one’s thinking. There are a number of ways that “setting the standard for all who follow” can become problematic.
What about a care-based approach? Although it isn’t always the most useful tool for ethical decision-making, it turns out to be an excellent tool for Torres. He thinks about what he would want were he in Davidson’s shoes. He would want to get the job fair and square. He would want to come into the position with no doubts by anyone, knowing that he deserved the job. He would want to be thoroughly vetted, and to stand by his record.
So in the end, Torres speaks up. He mentions his misgivings based on Davidson’s reputation “out there,” without naming any names. He suggests that a few more steps in speaking to faculty at the schools listed on Davidson’s impressive curriculum vitae would clear up any doubts. McCurdy and a number of other committee members are predictably furious. They accuse Torres of disrespecting process and of deliberately obstructing progress based on some random colleagues’ points of view. The committee votes eight to one in favor of Davidson.
Within six months, Torres reports, his worst fears are realized. Davidson devotes the majority of his energy to relationships of power, especially with trustees and the school head. He has little interest in the students or curriculum, and often shifts blame onto colleagues when he’s mistaken or incompetent. For a couple of years, the faculty does their best to behave professionally under very difficult circumstances. In the end, however, Davidson’s ambition works in their favor. In three years, a new search committee has to be formed. Davidson had moved on to another more impressive post elsewhere.