The University has the mission and the potential to be a moral force.
By Robert A. Scott, President, 天美传媒
I. Introduction
Your theme is certainly timely. We have been reading about the effects of fire and听heat on the World Trade Towers and their collapse, leaks at nuclear powerplants,听and mechanical failures in both domestic and military aircraft. Since the potential听effects of the unintended consequences of science, engineering, and medicine have in听some ways never been greater, it is no wonder there are concerns about ethical听decision-making in your professions.
However, I will leave the technical aspects of these issues to the specialists on the听program. Instead, I will focus on ethics more generally, the preparation of听professionals, and the role of the university.
As Marcia McNutt, a geophysicist and president of the American Geophysical Union听said,
The need will never be greater for inventors who understand and care听about the sociological impacts of their discoveries, and for policy听makers who understand the limitations of science and the long-term听consequences of technology. As we engineer the ocean (she said), we听must be cautious in our approach, humbled by our ignorance, and听farsighted in our policies.1
Concerns about ethics, engineering, and science are not new, of course. Many听decades ago, the poet Archibald MacLeish 鈥渁rgued that the loyalty of science听is not to humanity, but to its own truth, and that the law of science is not the听law of the good but the law of the possible.鈥�2
This is not a Luddite鈥檚 cry; this is a cry for balance, a claim that we have听choices to make between and among competing values. This is what ethics is听about, and what distinguishes ethics as a theory of decision-making from听morality, which concerns right and wrong, not 鈥渞ight鈥� from 鈥渞ight.鈥�
The medical scientist, Donald Louria, has said,
We are now more than ever in an era of scientific domination 鈥� a听period of unfettered technology that has and will produce many听stunning discoveries that will benefit humankind, but some that are听likely to harm our global society.3
The question, then, is not about where science is taking us, but about听where we want to go. Where do we want to go? Who decides? Who听minds the gap between what is possible and what is best for society?听Do we leave the answer to politics? Remember George Bernard听Shaw鈥檚 Pygmalion, where we hear:
I鈥檓 one of the undeserving poor鈥p agen middle-class听morality all the time鈥hat is middle-class morality? Just an听excuse for never giving me anything.4
That鈥檚 a powerful statement about choices and values, and who decides. It听helps underscore why I chose this topic, 鈥渢he university as a moral force.鈥澨齌he university is the one institution in society that, because of its mission, is听more than fact alone, like a library; more than belief alone, like a house of
worship; and more than emotion alone, like a club. It is the place in society听dedicated to the search for truth, the transformation of meaning, the听examination of intended and unintended consequences, and the concern for听equity, equality, fairness, and justice. This is the province of ethics. The role听of the University is to create ethical professionals, a 鈥渃ulture of conscience.鈥�5
The university must not take this role lightly. American university faculty听and leaders hold a privileged place in society. They are protected by law, by听rule, and by custom through tenure and academic freedom to pursue truth as听they wish. Nevertheless, these protections are often criticized by those outside听the academy. University educators must be especially careful not to allow听their special status to be reduced by a drive to serve every market听opportunity, and hence allow university education to become another听鈥渃ommodity鈥� product. At the same time, university educators must not only听preserve their special role on the margins of society, but also must do so in a听way that is not viewed as arrogant, as aloof from and scornful of听accountability. This requires a special balancing of the university鈥檚 mission听and the marketplace.
II. The increasing interest in ethics
These days, it seems that wherever we turn, one finds the topic of ethics. Does听this mean we are becoming more ethical, more concerned about choices and听values in decision-making? Has Chief Justice Warren鈥檚 famous line that, 鈥渋n听a civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics,鈥� been taken to heart?6
I would gather not, if the examples of Enron and Arthur Anderson are to be听taken seriously. Kenneth Lay, former ceo of Enron, issued a corporate Code听of Ethics in July 2000 (three months before the implosion) that states,听鈥淩uthlessness, callousness and arrogance don鈥檛 belong here鈥� at Enron.7听In his cover letter, Lay said, 鈥渨e (at Enron) are responsible for conducting听business affairs of the Company in accordance with all applicable laws and in听a moral and honest manner.鈥�8 Let us hope that all such codes are not as听superficial.
There are, indeed, many such codes and ethics officers. UNESO has an ethics听department; WHO is creating one. Ruder-Finn, the giant public relations听and marketing firm has an ethics officer. Texas Instruments has an ethics听officer. There are, in fact, a sufficient numbers of ethics officers in business to听create an Ethics Officer Association.
Academic disciplines have codes of ethics. Your own profession of听engineering has discipline-based codes of ethics; specific codes such as the听鈥淧rinciples of Ethical Conduct in Engineering Practice Under the North听American Free Trade Agreement;鈥�9 textbooks such as Science and听Engineering Ethics; 10听and a National Institute of Engineering Ethics.11
In addition, National Public Radio has a new program, 鈥淧laying by the听Rules,鈥� about ethics.12 The New York Times has a popular Sunday column听on ethics that has now spawned a book.13 And even The Chronicle of Higher听Education has reestablished a column entitled, 鈥淭he Academic Ethicist.鈥�14
So again, why this renewed interest in ethics? Is it a sign of a move away听from a 鈥渃ulture of compliance,鈥� in Greg Koski鈥檚 terms, towards a 鈥渃ulture of听conscience,鈥� with an assurance of the centrality of ethics?15 Is it a move from听a culture of laws and regulation to a culture of morality, or is it something听altogether different?
Is it an attempt to come to grips with a society in which laws and regulations听are being stripped of their power by the politics of special interests, and听efforts are being made to provide alternatives? Surely, as we think of the听series of crises in values represented by Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Richard听Nixon, Gordon Gecko, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, we听must be aware of the decline in a sense of shame, a tampering with laws,听abuses of power, an increase in greed, a decline in trust, and a continued听decline in respect for authority. Just think of the issues highlighted in the last听year: cloning, stem cell research, global warming, Social Security, energy听policy, racial profiling, access to public policy information, insider trading,听pension fraud, and campaign finance reform, to name a few examples.
These trends in behavior by leaders, accompanied by both the increasing gaps听between those who have and those who don鈥檛, in terms of wealth, power,听schooling, and healthcare, as well as a continuing political commitment to听market solutions for problems which the 鈥渕arket鈥� cannot deal with听adequately, seem to have prompted individuals and groups to say, 鈥淲ait.鈥� If听laws are abridged, and what鈥檚 considered right and wrong is changing, we听need to take a new look at how we express our values.
We must take a new听look at what Aristotle meant by the 鈥渃ommon good.鈥滺ave we forgotten that 鈥渢he welfare of the many and the welfare of the听individual are inextricably entwined,鈥�16 that individual rectitude must be听balanced by justice for all. As Randy Cohen, The New York Times鈥� ethics听columnist says,
鈥ndividual ethics can be understood only in relation to the听society within which it is practiced鈥t is also true that听individual ethical behavior is far likelier to flourish within a just听society. It might be argued that to lead an ethical life one must听work to build a just society鈥�(which) forms our values even as听we shape its structures.17
While the current interest in ethics is not new, and certainly was preceded by听great interest in the genetic engineering of crops or Green Revolution in the听1960鈥檚, bio-medical ethics or patient-doctor relations in the 1970鈥檚, and听business ethics, greed, in the 1980鈥檚, the current interest seems unique
because it is so pervasive across all fields. Perhaps this reflects the complexity听of contemporary life. Perhaps it reflects a greater awareness, if听not agreement in causes or solutions, of the numerous inequities that听surround us. It certainly is related to the increased concerns for overall听standards in a secular society, and accountability at all levels, especially of听those who are viewed as institutional leaders or elected officials.
We understand laws. They are formally adopted legislative acts with听prescribed judicial sanctions. We also understand morals as 鈥渞ules听describing desirable and undesirable states.鈥�18 They describe right and听wrong. Ethics 鈥渞epresent the rules for deciding how (desirable and听undesirable) states are to be achieved or avoided. Ethics are rules for making听rules of conduct and action.”19 That is, ethics are not codified in听laws or nursery rhymes; they are principles or civic virtues that guide how we
will choose between and among different values. They give us flexibility, with听limits.
In an interesting discussion of these distinctions, Professor Robert Artigiani,听an historian of science, concludes that, 鈥淐omplex societies favor ethics over听morals because they cannot know in advance exactly which (desirable and听undesirable) states (or conditions) will be stable but must educate individuals听to act reasonably.鈥�20 That is, they must have a common core of听understanding of the common good. And to act in the common good means听that we must know not only how to act but when to act and when not to act.
As one of your colleagues puts it, 鈥淓ngineers now are responsible for saying:听Can we do it, should we do it, if we do it can we control it, and are we willing听to be accountable for it?鈥�21
Our concern ultimately, though, is not only about engineers and scientists, or听even about politicians. We are concerned about decision-making by each of听us as citizens, about making choices when values are involved, answering听questions that cannot be settled by appeal to faith, fear, or fact alone.
And that, of course, brings us to the role of the University which prepares听people for the professions and citizenship.
The University As a Moral Force
I chose the title, 鈥淭he University as a Moral Force,鈥� i.e., as a force for听comprehending desirable and undesirable states of being, because I view听education in general and the university in particular as institutions that听prepare people for making decisions. In the words of Henry Rosovsky,听former Dean of Harvard College,
An educated person is expected to have some understanding of,听and experience in thinking about, moral (i. e., right and wrong)听and ethical (i. e., choice and values) problems22
It may well be that the most significant quality in educated听persons is the informed judgement that enables them to make听discriminating 鈥� choices.23
Why do I think of the University as a 鈥渕oral force鈥�? What is the nature of听the institution that bears these responsibilities?
These questions are intertwined. The University is a 鈥渇orce鈥� because it has听the power, and influence to cause action, and accelerate processes. The听university is a 鈥渕oral force鈥� because it constantly extends the boundaries of听what is known, and therefore challenges societal rules describing desirable听and undesirable states and behavior. By focusing on the decision-making听competence of those it hires and those it educates, it also makes choices about听the values it will express, exhibit, or eschew.
The role of the university is complex. Not only does it challenge societal听norms through research, scholarship, and other creative endeavors, but also听it is the curator of the past, the archivist of heritage. It is the institution听which bridges the past and the future by preparing its graduates in both
history and imagination.
Universities have several functions. They preserve the past; they prepare for听the future; they challenge the status quo; and they foster progress. Put听another way, they teach, they advance knowledge, and they act as partners听with other institutions.
Universities are not only at the center of society, as a servant and partner, in听terms of preparing the next generation, preserving society鈥檚 memory, and听working with other institutions, but also at the margins of society — or at least听I think they should be.
In this role at the margin, they stand aside and challenge assumptions; they听critique the gap between what is and what could be; they comment on what is听possible and what is desirable. They are as concerned about character and听citizenship as they are about careers and commerce. Or at least they should听be.
These multiple roles are necessary to prepare morally reflective citizens who听have thought deeply about such ethical issues as justice, equity, fairness, and听equality in relation to the fundamental needs of humans: food, housing,听family, healthcare, clean air and water, schooling, meaningful work, and听freedom of expression. This is an act of transformation, an act to prepare a听new person, unleashed from a previously provincial background, no matter听what his or her age, place of origin, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
I contrast this act of transformation 鈥� of changing the character of something听or someone 鈥� with another description of education and training, i.e.,听transaction, which is the exchange of information in a manner that doesn鈥檛听qualitatively transform the meaning of either party. A student paying a bill听at the bursar鈥檚 office enters a transaction. In class, he or she had better be听transformed.
An important means for ensuring transformation is to emphasize questions听rather than answers. In one of my favorite quotes, author James Baldwin听says that we must be certain to 鈥渓ay bare the questions hidden by answers.鈥澨鼳s a consequence, when I am given a recommendation, I will sometimes听reply, 鈥渢hat is an answer, what is the question?鈥�
In some sense, answers are like transactions, often given without thought to听assumptions, history, or context. Questions are more likely to be reflective.听This is the difference between education and training, with one emphasizing听questions and the other focusing on answers.
Questions provide a way of learning about motives, needs, and interests as听well. Often we hear or read about suggestions that seems to be based more on听opinion than on reason, more on belief than on fact. Education assists us in听framing questions in ways that help us find the essence of an issue. Education听helps us shape questions that reveal the 鈥渉ow鈥� and the 鈥渨hy,鈥� not just the听鈥渨ho鈥� and the 鈥渨hat.鈥�
Educators talk about the need to develop students鈥� problem-solving skills and听abilities. Unfortunately, they often don鈥檛 spend sufficient time preparing听students so that they have the knowledge, skills, abilities, and values necessary听to judge which problems to solve. Questions help students discern the听broader historical and analytical context of issues and fields. Only by听comprehending history and context can any of us understand goals and听principles, and the questions that suggested answers often reveal only听partially.
To say that the University is a moral force is both a declarative statement and听a statement of hope. It applies to each mission and role of the university,听whether as teacher of undergraduate or graduate students, as home of听scholarship and creative arts, as the sponsor of sports and cultural events, or
as partner or patron of area schools, communities, non-profit organizations,听or businesses. In each case, the University is called upon to be ethical, i.e., to听be fair and just in decision-making, in encouraging the advancement of听knowledge, because ethics, as a system of decision-making, moderates the听influence of superstition, belief, and fact by showing that we appreciate听consequence as well as cause.
In addition to teaching and scholarship, including creative arts, universities are听partners with or models of behavior for other organizations. Unfortunately,听universities are not yet as good at 鈥渄oing what they teach,鈥� when it comes to听ecological sensitivity and good practice, community sustainability, and relations with听schools. I cite these examples not as answers but as attempts to engage the university听in the community, to show by its behavior that it attempts to live up to what it听teaches.
Think about the values expressed by a University through its athletics programs,听fraternity systems, admissions policies, graduation rates and requirements, relations听with neighborhood schools, investment and hiring practices, government lobbying听for grants, etc. We teach by our actions, by our priorities for investment, and even听by our silence, as well as through our curricula.
How does the university balance its commitment to mission as well as to the market?听How do we balance our participation in 鈥渢he world of practical affairs (the center)听and in the world of ideas (the margin)?24
Morality is about virtue; ethics is about balance. To be ethical is not to abandon听objectivity, but to know what to be objective about. To keep objective science alive,听we must show that we understand and act on ethical considerations 鈥� to know the听difference between using stem cells to repair a spinal cord and creating an听鈥渦bermensch鈥� 鈥搊r else our science, technology and engineering will be further
hampered by fear, superstition, bias, and blind belief.
The University is a moral force. It has the mission to be one; it has the potential to听be one. The University has a unique opportunity to help create a culture of听conscience not only for the professions and professionals, but for all citizens, through听its teaching, scholarship, actions, and service to and with others. With this as its听stance, the University would strengthen its place at the center of society and solidify听its place at the margins.
All this is possible, and your conference is a major step in that direction.
Thank you.
Invited keynote address at a SUNY-Wide Symposium on Ethics in Engineering,听Stony Brook University, April 19, 2002; requested for publication in On the听Horizon, (Emerald Publishing, U.K.) volume 11, number 1, 2003.
1 McNutt, Marcia K. 鈥淒eveloping the Ocean.鈥� The Futurist, January-February 2002, p. 43.
2 Louria, Donald B. 鈥淪econd Thoughts on Extending Life-Spans.鈥� The Futurist, January-February 2002, p. 48.
3 ibid.
4 Shaw, George Bernard. 鈥淧ygmalion,鈥� Act 2, 1916.
5 Kahn, Jeffrey P. and Anna Mastroianni. 鈥淒oing Research Well by Doing Right.鈥� The Chronicle of
Higher Education, February 15, 2002, p. B24.
6 Warren, Chief Justice Warren. The New York Times, November 2, 1962.
7 Zeller, Tom. 鈥淭he Tao of Enron: Well, It Sounded Good.鈥� The New York Times, Sunday, February 24,
2002, p. WK5.
8 ibid.
9 Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism. 鈥淧rinciples of Ethical Conduct in Engineering Practice听Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (www.murdough.ttu.edu/nafta.html).
10 Martin, Brian. Review of Science and Engineering Ethics by Editors Stephanie J. Bird and Raymond听Spur. UK: Opragen. Science, 5 September 96, p. 42.
11 National Institute for Engineering Ethics (www.niee.org).
12 National Public Radio announcement, April 2, 2002.
13 Cohen, Randy. 鈥淭he Politics of Ethics.鈥� The Nation, April 8, 2002, Volume 274, Issue 13, p. 21.
14 Douglas, Lawrence and Alexander George. 鈥淭he Academic Ethicist: The Self-Embroidered Professor;听Ironist in Peril; Fund Raiser鈥檚 Fix.鈥� The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 22, 2002, B11.
15 Kahn and Mastroianni.
16 Johnson, Kirk. 鈥淎 Plan Without a Master.鈥� The New York Times, Sunday, April 14, 2002, pp 35,41.
17 Cohen, op.cit
18 Artigiani, Robert. 鈥淟eadership and Uncertainty: Complexity and the Lessons of History.鈥� Unpublished听manuscript, Department of History, U.S. Naval Academy, Artigiani@NADN.NAVY.mil
19 ibid.
20 ibid.
21 鈥淓ngineering Ethics Module.鈥� Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas (www.murdough.ttu.edu/EthicsModule/EthicsModule.html)
22 Rosovsky, Henry. The University: An Owner鈥檚 Manual. New York: W.W. Norton, 1990, p. 107.
23 ibid.
24 Ikenberry, Stanley O. 鈥淭he Practical and the Ideal: Striking a Balance.鈥� The Presidency, Spring 2001, p.听16.
For further information, please contact:
Todd Wilson
Strategic Communications Director听
p 鈥� 516.237.8634
e 鈥� twilson@adelphi.edu