Leadership Ethics

I found a case similar to the one mentioned in class by Nance Lucas:

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/24/24010.html

This story explains that the college president of Ithaca College was faced with student protesting the contract that the school has with a certain food service company. Their issue was similar to the acceptance of money from an organization that is in the news in some way with questionable practices. The president's decision in this case was to remain with the food service company after much deliberation and research into the allegations and options.

The decision falls on that line of ethics that remains grey. It isn't necessarily that the president acted unethically, actually, I would argue that the president acted in the best interest of the college and with a respectable process. I pulled this article because of the perspective of the writer. It showed me that in any ethical decision, there is always people that will still believe that the wrong decision was made. Just as Nance mentioned, most ethical dilemmas are typically between two possible rights and not necessarily between wrong and right.

The article rolls through with the perspective that the president made the wrong decision. The viewpoint is expressed very clearly in this paragraph:

President Williams has studied the issue to her satisfaction. "Ithaca College administration has conducted extensive research on the issue of private prisons and the relationship of SMS and its parent company, Sodexho Alliance, to the private prison industry." The "extensive research" the president speaks of was done "with open minds, in the spirit of academic inquiry, without any predetermined outcome." Independent and objective specialists were consulted. "We engaged outside experts to provide us with objective information on and analysis of criminal justice issues and prison privatization as well as insights into the food service industry and the implications of different possible decisions." Among the "experts" that Williams consulted with were Professor Michael Jacobson of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Strategic Communications, a research and public affairs firm; and John Cornyn of the Cornyn Fasano Group, a food service management consulting firm. It's not surprising that these "objective" experts supported President Williams in her decision to continue funding prisons for profit with student food dollars.

I wanted to sum this up, but each sentence has scathing remarks with regards to the decision and process. The constant quoted words bring an air of sarcasm. The fact that the president took the time and effort to research the matter and weigh all possible implications was obviously not enough for these students.

The other issue that I have with these ethical decisions is the cattiness that ensues once a decision is made that isn't in the favor of a certain group. More often than not the group will target the salary of the president as a new direction to take their gripe. Because the president could not justify spending more college funds on an increased effort (as there is probably better uses, or no flexibility) then the writer decides to mention that the president makes over $400,000 a year. For a major college, that honestly does not sound like much money in relation to some of the numbers that I came across in my search for this article.

This article brings up a true ethical dilemma for the president. It shows that ethical dilemmas typically have winners and losers. In most cases, as Nance also mentioned, losers are sore and will tend to continue their gripes. It is true that as a leader you will not please everybody, but I stand by the president's decision based on the research that took place to justify the decision.